1g Rec Plan Comm Minutes 1/5/00
~
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 5, 2000
chaimián Peterson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
,
MEMBERS PRESENT: Craig Peterson, Ladd Conrad, Alison Blackowiak, Matt Burton, Deb
.K¡ 1d, LµAnn Sidney, and Kevin Joyce
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Bob Generous, Senior
Planner; Shannin Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Cynthia Kirchoff, Planner I; and Dave Hempel,
Assistant City Engineer
PUBLIC HEARING:
REOUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A CAR-X MUFFLER AND
BRAKE SHOP (AUTO SERVICES CENTER) AT 60 LAKE DRIVE EAST ON PROPERTY
ZONED BH. HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT. COOK PROPERTIES- CHANHASSEN
LLC.
Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Any questions of Bob?
Sidney: I guess one question Mr. Chairman. Could you explain what condition 5 is please?
Generous: Condition 5 is for a one hour occupancy separation. That's just putting in a fire wall
to retard or slow down any fire spreading between the repair section because they're using that
weldÍJlg equipment and torches.
Sidney: Okay.
Kind: Mr. Chairman, I have a question about number 9. Condition number 9. No outdoor
storage orany kind and any vehicles left overnight shall be stored in the building. I'm wondering
if we can, if there's any more teeth that we could put to that. My issue is related to Abra and
their outside storage of trash and that sort of thing. Do we have any fines that can be enforced
when that happens?
Generous: There's a separate nuisance ordinance that would cover that but we could void their
. . . conditional use permit if they, we fmd them in violation of the conditions of approval. Which in
.effect would close the business down. I don't know how much more teeth you would need than
that.
Kind: Than that, yeah. And is that, does that need to be stated as a condition or is that just the
way it is?
Generous: That's established in the ordinance.
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
Kind: Okay. Well that seems pretty sufficient to me.
Peterson: Bob on the hours of operation, does that parallel with currently the closest business
type establishment to it of Goodyear?
Generous: They have longer hours. This is, the applicant actually put in these hours. He said
that's all he could work. That's all he can fmd individuals to work for.
Peterson: Should we be a little bit more proactive and give him the same hours as the other so he
won't have to come back for a change later?
,
Generous: Well that was my question to him and he said this is all he could staff.
Aanenson: Maybe could I address that. I think with the Abra Goodyear we had that same
concern of hours ofòperation. It was a neighborhood concern there regarding noise, the height
of the door. Alison can probably comment on that too. They did come back and ask for some
issues. Some changes. I think what Deb stated, how much teeth we have, there's an opportunity
to put some leverage if they're complying with the ordinance than you may want, and they do
want to extend the hours, there's an opportunity to change it but I think that's what they're willing
to go with. It seems to be a good neighbor and we would sùpport that. If they want to change it,
they're following the conditions of the permit and I think you'd probably look favorably on
extensions of those.
peterson: Point well taken. Other questions?
Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I have one question. I didn't see anything addressed regarding outside
speakers or telephones. Do you have any problems with us setting a condition to address that
issue?
Generous: That would continue what was approved under the previous conditional use so no.
Blackowiak: So does the previous conditional use then run with the property or just runs with
the?
Generous: Well it runs with the use that was approved previously. So the Ernissions Control
have those conditions specifically.
Blackowiak: So this would be consistent with neighboring uses?
Generous: Yes.
Blackowiak: Okay. So we should probably then add that I'm assuming. Okay.
Peterson: Other questions? Thanks you. Would the applicant or their designee wish to address
the commission? If so, please come forward and state your name and address please.
2
Planning 'CommisSionMeetinS -JaQUary 5, 2000
Brian Cook: 1m Brian Cook. I'm sorry I couldn't hear your, oh this is my brother Gary. I
couldn't bear what you "I,1\Iere I!IJYing.about the hours.
AanenSOD:' Wbat-we dO'IYitlu\bnr-Goodyear, they also had a little bit more restrictive hours.
They camein.and.aS1œdfor.JID,extmsion of those hours. The Planning Commission and the
Council didextenà those hours. So what we're saying is if you're applying with the conditions
which goes~. the """'.......... that Commissioner Kind had, how can we make sure that you're
complying with lbeœttditioDs:. You've asked for those hours. It sounds like they seem
amenable and if y<IU want to extend those and you were following the conditions, that they
would probably extend those if they're good neighbors.
Brian Cook: Well, I'd like to ask now that we go from 7:00 til 7:00 and just give me a little
leeway. I know I did happen to call Goodyear before I came and they're open from 7:00 til 9:00
and I think 7:00 tiI5:00 on Saturdays. They're open Sundays too. I'm not going to do Sunday
hours but we do have a store in Bloomington and it is open at 7:00 in the morning. We don't do
a whole lot of business. What we get is a lot of people dropping cars off and then getting rides to
work. So I'm not planning on opening at, when we open up but I'd like to have that option of
maybe opening at 7:00. If the business is there, you know I don't know if people are going to use
it that way.
fe,
~
~.
t
.,
Peterson: We'll consider that. Anything else?
Brian Cook: No.
Peterson: Okay. Any questioas,ofthe applicant? Thank you.
Brian Coole ThatIk you.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. May I have a motion and a second please.
Kind moved, Sidney seconded-to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: Anyone wishing to address the commissioners during this public hearing, please come
forward and state your name and address please.
Kind moved, BurtoI:I seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson:-Commissioners,yoUl" thoughts? Comments?
Kind: MrA]œr? I'm-fine wiIh w.ving the hours be 7:00 to 7:00. That's what was approved for
Goodyear;whichis1heir neighbor ad competition perhaps. And then I like the idea of the no
outdoor 'i""'Yf"rS .tbatAJison brought up. Otherwise I think the staff report is very complete.
,
.
Peterson: How do you feel abOut ~ Saturday hours? Leave them...
3
~;.
l
I
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
Kind: Leave them the way they are in condition number 8. Since they didn't speak to that.
Peterson: Okay. Any other thoughts?
Burton: I think the condition about the phones is a good condition to carry through and the
speakers.
Peterson: I'll entertain a motion.
Blackowiak: I'll make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends approval of
Conditional Use Permit #99-5 to permit a Car-X Muftler and Brake, Cook Properties,
Chanhassen LLC, subject to conditions I through 11 with condition 8 being revised to read the
shop hours shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. to 3:00
p.m. Saturday. Changes to the hours must be approved by City Council. And then addition
condition 12. No outside speakers or telephones.
Kind: Second.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Blackowiak moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission recommend approval of
Conditional Use Permit #99-5 to permit a Car-X Muftler and Brake, Cook Properties-
Chanhassen LLC, subject to the following conditions:
I. Three understory trees shall be planted in the landscape area along the east property line.
2. Applicant shall add one overstory tree to the landscape/sod strip around the parking lot
that runs parallel to the east property line.
3. When the building was originally built, because of building occupancy classification, it
was not required to be fire sprinklered. However, because the occupancy is changing
from a B-1 B-2 to H4, State Building Code requires that the building be fire sprinklered
in accordance with NFP A 13. Pursuant to Chapter 1306, Department of Administration,
Minnesota State Building Code #1306.0100 Subdivision 2.
4. The building must comply with Chanhassen Fire Department /Fire Prevention Division
Policy #04-1991. Copy Enclosed.
5. A one hour occupancy separation is required between the office/waiting area and the
repair area.
6. The building must meet the requirements of Minnesota Building Code Chapter 1341
regarding accessibility for existing buildings.
7. A separate sign permit shall be required for each sign proposed on the site.
4
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
8. The shop hours shall be from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and 8:00
a.m. to 3 :00 p.m. Saturday. Changes to the hours must be approved by the City Council.
9. No outdoor storage or any kind and any vehicles left overnight shall be stored in the
building.
10. Repairs to vehicles may not be performed outside the building.
11. The monument sign base shall be consistent with the building material.
12. No outside speakers or telephones will be allowed.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO PERMIT AUTOMOBILE RENTAL IN THE BH.
HIGHWAY BUSINESS DISTRICT TO BE LOCATED AT 227 WEST 79TH STREET.
ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR.
Cindy Kirchoff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of staff?
Blackowiak: Mr. Chairman, I've got a question. Can you talk to me Cynthia about the
difference between the 1.2 parking spaces per rental vehicle and the formula you've got, I
parking space per each 500 square feet of floor area. How do they mesh?
Kirchoff: We just simplified it. Rather than having two separate criteria, we just meshed them
into one. So point 2 is the same as I per 5. So now we have 1.2 spaces rather than I per rental
vehicle and then another one for every 5 rental vehicles.
Blackowiak: Okay. I'm looking at the back part when it talks about I parking space for each
500 square feet of floor area. So how does it, I mean.
Kirchoff: Those are two separate issues. That's under the parking standards. That's for the
office use and number 11 refers only to the parking spaces for the rental vehicles.
Blackowiak: Okay. So they're okay. So if they have 10 rental vehicles, they're going to have 12
parking spaces basically. Plus whatever it requires for the office personnel.
Kirchoff: Correct.
Blackowiak: Okay. Great, I'm clear on that. Thank you.
5
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
Peterson: I'm a little confused on the, on the need to put down the ancillary to a primary use. If
this was in front of us, and this is my personal opinion, and they wanted 200 square feet on a
strip mall, or independent, I mean why, help me understand why I would be concerned about
that.
Kirchoff: Well basically we don't want it to turn into a large rental facility. Want it to be more
community oriented.
Peterson: But if we limit everything else, why do we care whether they're cohabitated or not?
Kirchoff: Well it's just another way for us to limit the scope of the operation.
Aanenson: Also going back to the city's, we don't have.. . district or the business highway related
businesses. Just the fact the aesthetic issue. We screen parking. I think as Cindy's put the
criteria together, it'd be difficult to, there's limited number of places these could go to meet the
criteria. For example in a strip mall, to put them in the rear, we do allow, at the hardware store
there is U-Hauls. Those are required to be screened so there isn't a lot of opportunities to put
these in. I guess we felt like if they, if there was a relationship between a hotel or a car repair,
that that seemed to work. We didn't want them to become a regional draw. It seemed, that they
fit together. That seemed to make some sense. And there was a convenience that's meeting the
needs of the community. I guess that's what we're looking at. And if we were approached, I
guess that may be an opportunity to re-examine it but we don't think there's a lot of places. If
you look at, where we've got a core downtown or even Villages on the Pond, that that may work.
It's a good point.
Peterson: On the surface I guess I see this as being pretty onerous and you're eliminating
basically the one car rental agency that does this and I just find that a little bit aggressive but I
can respect the aggressiveness. Other questions?
Burton: Yeah, I think I do have one. Is automobile defined? I'm just wondering if it could, if
anybody would interpret that to mean they could rent trucks and things like that.
Peterson: They limit the, took in the presentation, it was limited to tonnage. Like a 9,000, 9,000
was the max. Pick-up trucks were included as being okay.
Aanenson: Sure. That's a good point. We'll make sure that...
Kent Beck: My name's Kent Beck. If you'd like me to answer that, I'm with Enterprise.
Peterson: We'll get to you in a sec. No problem.
Aanenson: That's something we can get some clarification on. If they wanted to rent mopeds or
something.
Peterson: Other questions?
6
Planning Comrnissi<mMeding'-.J8Im1IIY5, 2000
Conrad: Mr. Chair, how did we pick 2Q?
Kirchoff: SDiff spoIœ withFmerpñse and asked how large a facility they normally have and they
said l5. We did call a ooupIe>OtherilÎutomobile rental agencies and they did say they usually kept
up to 20 and we 1JeIievè1hat was a reasonable number to use since we did call other agencies,
rather thanjustDSing rental,«Entârprises' number.
Conrad: So.. 500 _is âJr staff. ODe stall per staff. Per 500 feet. And they're, given that,
I'm looking fur.,'SD this one/how mmy parking spaces will there be in total? Based on what
Enterprise might need.
Kirchoff: Based on what they're doing?
Conrad: Yeah.
Kirchoff: They want to have 9 parking stalls, or 9 rental vehicles and they'll have 700 square
feet of office.
Conrad: So then they get just one.
Blackowiak: Well, I get l2...times 1.2 plus 2 for the office which exceeds 500...
Kirchoff: Well they will ßlWe to come·ôack withthe...conditional use permit so at that time
they'll.
Conrad: Craig,fdjust eeoo)'OUl" conœm with the ancillary to the primary use. I guess that
would be in tli",,",co;ion, not a question to staff right now but I'm not sure if that makes sense.
Peterson: Okay, other.questions?
Kind: Mr. Chairman. I noñced Cindy on the 13 potential standards, you listed no outdoor
speaker system shall be permitted and that's, I don't know, it's number 4 now. I'm wondering if
going back to Alison's previous comment with the previous item, if we should add phones as
well. That would not be a public address system but outside phones ringing is also a
neighborhood nuisance.
Kirchoff: Sure.
Kind: And then W1ærewas 1Detonnllge? I'm sorry, where was the tonnage?
Peterson: It was in a tetter ftom Dave Hanson, December 6th. Other comments or questions? If
the applicant'IYDuld come furward aDd stàte your name and address please. Up to the podium.
Kent Beck: ·MYill8lDe is KœtBeck'lllJdl'm with Enterprise Rent-a-Car and I live at 992
Stewarton Drive in Woodbury.
",.
7
~.
Î
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
Peterson: Any questions of the applicant?
Conrad: Yeah, how was the drive?
Kent Beck: Well let me know you my shoes. I apologize for being late. It was quite a drive
from Fridley but we made it and the roads are a little treacherous. Helps to have a sport utility.
If you have that you're okay. But I apologize for being late.
Kind: Mr. Chair I have a question of the applicant. Could you speak to the tonnage of a typical
vehicle that's rented and whether there will be mini-vans or SUV's, that sort of thing.
Kent Beck: Good question. As far as the types of vehicles we rent, we don't rent anything larger
than a mini-van. We carry the full range of cars from the normal rental facilities that you see at
an airport location. The mini-van on down sizes. I'm not sure of the particular weights of those
cars but it'd be no different than if you're familiar with a Chevrolet Astro Van. Nissan Quest.
Something would be the largest vehicle we'd carry or rent. Does that answer?
Kind: Yes, thank you.
Peterson: Other questions of the applicant. Anything else you'd care to add?
Kent Beck: One of the things we do is, just to let you know a little bit about Enterprise Rent-a-
Car. We do tend to locate more in communities as opposed to airports. You might have seen
our offices. We do have 40 offices in the metro area and in the State of Minnesota. And we do
have unique locations because we feel that we do serve a purpose within a community. If
someone in a community needs to rent a car, they don't have to always go to the airport. This
will give them the opportunity to rent a car locally and we do keep our cars rented most of the
time, which to you in this room would mean that you won't see many of our cars sitting on the
facility. I know there's sometimes that concern that we're going to store or warehouse rental
cars. We will not do we're not being successful as a business. So we will not have more than
10% of what we have in the fleet sitting so that's why we would look for something like
anywhere from 12 to 15 spaces to park the cars. We do not put flyers on the cars like "Rent Me".
You know things like that. Just something we provide the community so you don't have to go to
the airport to rent cars.
Peterson: Good, thank you.
Kent Beck: Thank you.
Peterson: A motion and a second for a public hearing please.
Joyce moved, Conrad seconded to open the public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
Peterson: This is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission please come
forward.
8
Planning€ommissiòn-Meeting - January 5, 2000
Kind moved, Conmd seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: lwaslållid of1hinking that everybody was here for the rental car but I'll guess again on
that one. -Public bearing closed. Commissioners. Thoughts on this one.
Burton: Mr. (:þ"i...."," _ I think it's reasonable. I do have the concern about the definition still of
the automobile; I dIink staffs going to take a look at that. Otherwise I think it looks fine. This
applicant's DOt mt-..lir¡g to, it doesn't sound like push the defmitions and go beyond the mini-
vans but døwnthcmad we may run into that so that's the only concern I had.
Joyce: I agree with Matt. I would like to have the automobile little more definitive. The
applicant brought up a good point as far as signage on your automobile. I don't know if that
would fall under our signage ordinance or not but we don't want anything on the automobiles. I
don't know how to present that but I don't think there should be anything, tags or.
Kent Beck: Can I speak to that?
Peterson: I don't think there's a need to. We're talking about the ordinance now.
Joyce: Yeah, this is more the ordinance rather than the use. Ifwe're going to pass this ordinance
I don't think, I wantto be careful with that as well. I don't know how to present that but does
that, Kate could I ask that question. Would that fall under the, would they have to get a separate
sign ordinance or something to even put banners on or streamers or something?
Aanenson: That was my concern if we make it a primary use, it could end up being a lot of signs
attracting people. When you're ancillary to the use, it's generally people that are going to use that
types, although it cOuld be open to more people. We have to look beyond just, that was our
concern of making it a principle use. I think that's a good question. That's part of the reason
why we asked that it be s.creened in relationship to something else.
Joyce: Yeah, I'd lilœ to put a condition in there that says no, you know, advertising or whatever
on the cars. I mean nothing. Otherwise I'm fine with it.
Peterson: Anybodydse?
Kind: Mr. ChairmaI1 Ibave a question for staff regarding process. Will this applicant need to
come back to us for the conditional use permit and that would a time that we could add banners
and signs and flags and whatever?
Kirchoff: .But we.am put.it in as one of the standards, no signs shall be attached to vehicles.
.
Kind: Okay.
Kirchoff: :r1aa1's.preuy.simple so.
9
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
Kind: And then that brings up the other point of what, do you have a tonnage for what the
difference is between a mini-van and a moving truck is?
Kirchoff: We could definitely define automobile for the zoning ordinance as part of this.
Kind: I think that'd be a swell idea.
Peterson: Other comments?
Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I'd just like to make one comment. This is regarding the ancillary use. I
support the term ancillary use in this specific ordinance and probably the main reason is the fact
that it is the BH district and I don't think that we want to necessarily have a huge auto rental
facility in the BH district. So I'm all for leaving this ancillary use in this specific district and if
and when the time should come that we have another applicant that would like to look at a free
standing rental dealership, then we could take a look at you know how we want to go at that
point but I don't really feel, I was not at all alarmed about the ancillary use term in this
ordinance.
Peterson: Anyone else?
Conrad: Mr. Chairman, I think it's real important to have rental facilities in Chanhassen. In the
community. I like how staff stated the intent, other than the ancillary part. The intent is to serve
the community, not to a broad city, Minneapolis. So I like that. That's good. I like the
condition. I'm just concerned that another operation won't come in under these conditions. That
bothers me. I think it's good to actually promote, if you follow transportation there are some
philosophies that if you have rental cars people don't need as many cars in a community so for
those one or one time a month trips, instead of having a second, third car in the family, you do
have a rental facility. We have Dial-a-Ride here in Chan, but on the other hand there are some
very valid purposes met by having rental facilities. To say it has to be secondary and to limit the
next group coming in to find somebody to co-op with basically, that bothers me. That's, I'm not
sure what they're going to see. So that's an issue. I like the rest of the ordinance. I'm assuming
we're not trying to hide these people. I'm assuming, I have no need to hide a rental facility in
Chan' I'm assuming they can take advantage of signage. Because, but because they're part of
another building, it will be restricted because that other building will have it's signage. So I'm
not sure if we're, you know I think we're pretty comfortable with the applicant that's coming in
that will take advantage of this ordinance. I'm not sure if it's really the way I would structure the
ordinance in the long run.
Peterson: Okay, other comments?
Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair, I guess I'll make a few comments. I agree with the commissioners
comments. I do believe that I feel very comfortable with limiting the scope of the rental facility
as stated in the proposed intent statement. And I think the use is reasonable and the ordinance is
well crafted so I don't see that it would be recommended.
Peterson: I'll entertain a motion. I'd be happy to entertain a motion.
10
Planning Commission Meeting -danuary5, 2000
Joyce: I'll saytbemotion. The Nauning Commission approve the Zoning Ordinance
Amendmeat to pennitautomobiJe _tal facilities as a conditional use in the BH, Highway
Business District as shown in Auacbment'4. Should I add the conditions onto the amendment?
Aanenson; Yes.
Joyce: Tße one COBdition I'd lilre to add Dl1 number 12 is the vehicles do not...
Kind: Second.
I
f
I
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
Burton: The only question I have is do we have to make it a condition to work on the definition
of automobile or is that just going to happen?
Aanenson:.. .
Burton: That staff review the definition of automobile and incorporate it into the ordinance.
Peterson: All those in favor signity by saying aye.
Kind: I'm sorry. Mr. Chair I have'ooe friendly amendment to number 4. To have it read, no
public address system or outside phones shall be permitted.
Joyce: Accepted.
Joyce moved, Kind seconded that the Planning Commission approve Zoning Ordinance
Amendment ('Sec. 20296, Sec. 2IP1l4 and Sec. 20-1124) to permit automobile rental facilities as
a conditional use in the BH, Highway Business District as shown in Attachment #4 with the
condition that staff review the definition of automobile and include it in the ordinance.
Amending Section 20-296(b)(4) toread, No public address system or outside telephones shall be
permitted. And adding under Section 20-296(b), item 12. No signage shall be attached to
vehicles. All voted in favor, except Peterson and Conrad who opposed and the motion carried
with a vote of510 2.
Peterson: My reasoning is probably the same as Ladd's where I think it's too restrictive.
Conrad: Andhvouldadd to that, fthink20's too high and so, I think 20's too high. I'd like to
see it low.and we can always raiscit in 1bc future. And I'm a little bit concerned about the
.signage restriction based on YoUl" definition" ..
PUBLIC HEARING:
REOUEST FOR A SITE PLANREOUESTING 5 THREE LEVEL APARTMENT
c BUILDINGS AND A COMMUNITY BUILDING FOR A TOTAL OF 344 APARTMENTS ON
11
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R WITH AN AREA OF 21.34 ACRES. AND A PLANNED UNIT
DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW 34.9% HARD SURF ACE COVERAGE.
AMENDED PARKING STANDARDS. A WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT AND
PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL TO SUBDIVIDE 21.34 ACRES INTO 4 LOTS
LOCA TED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF POWERS BOULEVARD AND LAKE
DRIVE WEST. POWERS RIDGE APARTMENT HOMES. LAKE SUSAN HILLS
PARTNERSHIP AND MILLER HANSON WESTERBECK BERGER. INC.
Public Present:
Name
Address
Geoff & Holy Kuchera
Erick Ries
Jim Lamson
Mike Stoebe
Bill Sharbono
8441 Egret Court
Lake Susan Hills Partnership
Lake Susan Hills Partnership
3122 Club View Court, St. Cloud
Loucks & Associates,
7200 Hemlock Lane, Maple Grove
1201 Hawthorne, Minneapolis 55403
Loucks & Associates,
7200 Hemlock Lane, Maple Grove
1250 Lake Susan Hills Drive
1290 Lake Susan Hills Drive
1320 Lake Susan Hills Drive
1340 Lake Susan Hills Drive
1310 Lake Susan Hills Drive
1290 Lake Susan Hills Drive
1321 Lake Susan Hills Drive
1331 Lake Susan Hills Drive
1350 Lake Susan Hills Drive
8300 West Lake Court
1260 Lake Susan Hills Drive
8418 Rosewood Drive
1330 Lake Susan Hills Drive
1281 Lake Susan Hills Drive
Link Wilson
Jeff Shopek
David Ruegg
Bill Weber
Doug & Sandra Wilder
Dan Fagan
Mark Menzuber
Rhonda Weber
Scott Berquist
Diane McCarron
Doug Taylor
Ronald & Cindi Tonn
Jim Dyvig
Tom & Pat Simpson
Kerry & Kim Simenson
Marliu Stene
Shannin Al-Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Peterson: Questions of staff?
Kind: Mr. Chairman, I have a question or two. Sharmin, I'm just unclear on this hard surface
coverage thing. The applicant could just simply delete the sidewalks and then they would meet
that 32%?
Al-Jaff: Yes.
12
~ t
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
Kind: And I want the sidewalks. Let's see, what else? .. . sidewalk down to Powers, and also to
the park.. .
Al-Jaff: It was only discussed in the staff report. We didn'ttalkspccifically with the applicant in
regards.. .
Kind: Okay, I'll ask them about that. And then I'm assuming that the bay window discussion
would be happening when Building B comes before us. Is tbat... Oh, there were a couple items
that were not in the staff report but sometimes customarily ~8IId I just wanted to run them by
you. I'm assuming that trash will be enclosed in the underground garage.
Al-Jaff: Yes it will be.
Kind: And that the utility meters and boxes will be screened with landscaping of some sort.
Al-Jaff: Yes.
Kind: And that signage will comply with city ordinances.
Al-Jaff: Correct.
,
Kind: Didn't have that here so.. . And the pool area will be fenced.
Al-Jaff: Yes it will be.
Kind: City ordinance that we do comply with there. And that's it for...staffreport you
recommended... the westerly crosswalk and I couldn't find a condition for that. Am I missing it
or do you not want it anymore or?
<
i;
"';
Hempel: Those type of items would be.. .little more detail and review. You can certainly
recommend it as a condition at this point but it would be one of our recommendations...
~
~.,
Kind: And then I have a question about the elevation. The soil that's there right now, is that a lot
of it, part of a stockpile that was done when the neighborhood to the south was developed and
then Powers redeveloped. How did that berm get there?
+
,
,
Hempel: Chairman, commi..ioners, based on the city's aerial topography maps from 1989 it did
show what looks like some additionalfiU material being placed QI1 the outlot. That was
generated from the...It's not a very large pile. I think the e1evation...is probably 80 feet wide by
a couple hundred feet wide and up to 10 feet high.
.:~'
.~.,
Oj~
Kind: And do you view that as being a part of what's driving the overall elevation that's being
recommended at 940?
\i
.<
t","
::..:
'..;
r
ì
I.
I
k
Hempel: Not necessarily. I believe the engineers looked at the balancing of earth work material
on the site. There's the balance...
13
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
Kind: Okay. And then the east driveway on the contour map looks like it's.. .or am I bad at
looking at contour maps?
Hempel: I believe they did have a... proposed on it in the range of 5%. It's not excessive.
Kind: You're okay with that?
Hempel: Yes.
Kind: My last Dave question is, staff report talked about the traffic increased based on this
development...being 3,430 cars per day and that that will probably a force a light at Lake Drive
West and Powers. I'm wondering how soon you anticipate that would be happening.
Hempel: ...in the staff report we looked at this area in conjunction with the development north
of the property, actually with the industrial park. That EA W document takes into account these
properties land use and what traffic would be generated from it. From that data they estimated
that at sometime in the future when the sites are all built out, that traffic warrants would be met
for a signalized intersection at Powers Boulevard and Lake Drive West. That will be reviewed
as the site's develop in the commercial industrial area and this will add increased traffic to Lake
Drive West now. We'll have to monitor that...
Kind: But you're not going to give me a guess as to how many years out we're talking here.
Hempel: If this all was to develop in the next two years, then a traffic signal would be installed
in two years.
Kind: Okay, thank you. That's all for now.
Peterson: Other questions?
Joyce: I have one question for staff Mr. Chairman. The $500 landscape, how'd that come about
being a number that they picked? Do you have any idea at all?
Al-Jaff: Good question.
Joyce: I guess the reason I ask is that was decided in 1987.
Aanenson: That's correct.
Joyce: Yeah, so that's obviously 1987 dollars might be considered.
Aanenson: But that's what we're bound to. That was the contract.
Joyce: That's what's in the contract. Is there any, where can that landscaping be placed? Could
that be placed on each lot or is there a.
14
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
Al-Jaff: There was an Outlot A.
Joyce: No, not lot rather but can it be placed between, as a buffer to use all of that funding?
Probably not the intent but.
Aanenson: Right, I'm not sure that would make it a good project overall. It would solve one
problem but it may create another.
Joyce: Right. I'mjust, I'm curious if there were two.
Aanenson: ... amenities of that development.
Joyce: Okay.
Peterson: .. .include the landscaping plan that's attached tonight, and they don't spend, the
landscaping plan does not cite spending the $500 per unit. Are we saying that they have to spend
$500 per unit someplace in there and so something?
Aanenson: I'm certain they're exceeding that.
Peterson: That's my question.
Aanenson: Yes, they will... We require escrow for landscaping.
Joyce: Is this additional money? Am I understanding, maybe I'm misunderstanding it. Is the
$500 above and beyond what is required of them?
Al-Jaff: No.
Aanenson: Generally if a PUD was to come in today they'd have to meet certain landscape
standards based on our PUD ordinance. This one has a contract with a different standards than
we would use today. What we require on a site plan to complete the landscaping plan as per the
ordinance, then they're required to give us a letter of credit... It goes in that way. Then you take
that letter of credit, add a value to it and then we hope. .. So there is a value attached of
landscaping with this project. This project, because it was done in 1987, instead of using the
formula that we've created since then and that ordinance has been modified a couple of times,
was given $500 per unit as a way to achieve that goal.
Joyce: I understand.
Peterson: Netting it out, $500 is the minimum. Other questions?
Blackowiak: Mr. Chair I've got a couple questions about trails and sidewalks. Sharmin, doesn't
it mention something about the fact that if they delete the internal sidewalks they would meet the
IS
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
hard surface coverage. But as I read the development contract they're required to have internal
sidewalks so that wouldn't be an option would it?
Al-Jaff: What we did is alter... outlots with multi-family or medium density. Whenever you
have private streets, it does not require them to put in sidewalks.
Blackowiak: Okay, but this contract specifically says 5 foot wide concrete, off street
trails/sidewalks along one side of all internal streets.
Aanenson: The public streets, which they have.
Blackowiak: All internal streets?
Al-Jaff: No, that's private.
Aanenson: No, not on private. We're talking about Lake Drive West and Powers. That's what
she's talking about there. And that's what we've applied through the rest of the PUD.
Blackowiak: Okay, so this is not talking about this development right now? I'm looking
specifically at page 3.
Aanenson: It is... talking about public streets, not the private streets.
Blackowiak: Okay what, how do you define internal streets? I guess that's my problem. I
thought that the internal streets that were in this development were all private.
Aanenson: Right. You go through the rest of Lake Susan, Lake Drive West, those are all public
streets. Not all those streets have sidewalks either.
Blackowiak: Okay, so show me how this applies then? I'm sorry, I'm really confused. .53, page
3.
Aanenson: That's for the entire PUD. All of Lake Susan.
Blackowiak: Right. Yeah, I understand that.
Aanenson: All of Lake Susan, every street.. .has a sidewalk.
Al-Jaff: For instance Lake Susan Hills Drive should have a sidewalk on it.
Blackowiak: So what I'm saying is, help me out. Where does this apply? Does this point apply
or something got overlooked or?
Aanenson: Generally... we generally apply it to more collector streets where there's a greater
traffic volume. Pedestrian volume which would be your perimeter streets or your collector
streets. That's how that's been applied to the whole PUD.
16
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
Blackowiak: Should it .have been done that way?
Aanenson: Yeah. We think it's repetitive to put public streets, to plow and maintain them when
you're not serving a lot. Weare requiring sidewalks on the perimeter of this project, which is an
internal street between <me side of the street and the other.
Blackowiak: I guess rm just not understanding how you're defining internal streets.
Aanenson: Well, if we were to say internal streets, then every street in the Lake Susan Hills
would have sidewalks. .. . not every street in that subdivision has a sidewalk.
Blackowiak: Correct.
Aanenson: So, that same rule is being applied to this project. Aren't those internal streets?
Blackowiak: Right, but I'm saying maybe they should. I mean I'm just curious about that.
Aanenson: Well we don't put sidewalks on every street in the city though.
Hempel: Chairman, commissioners, maybe I can just add to that. The intent of this was for your
connecting streets. Residential neighborhoods like from Lake Drive West. You've got Flamingo
Drive up in that neighborhood. Heron Drive I believe. The streets, the thru streets essentially
are the intent to put sidewalks on those type of streets. The cul-de-sacs, short streets like that,
there was no need, and no requirement to put sidewalks in on those. It's more of a collector type
road as we do.. . subdivisions that have dead ends and cul-de-sacs, we typically don't require
sidewalks with those streets.
Blackowiak: Okay, I'm still not following but I'll move on.
Aanenson: Lake Susan Hills, I mean compared to any other PUD project we've done in the city,
Mission Hills, it only has it on West 86th Street. We don't put them internally on all PUD
projects either. I mean it's consistent with what we've done in other PUD's.
Blackowiak: No, I'm not arguing whether it's, I'm just saying that it says you're supposed to have
them and I'm just curious if we're supposed to have them. That was my question.
Aanenson: It depends on how you're reading it too, I understand.
Blackowiak: Okay. Let's move along. Then if we're talking about major streets and sidewalks,
nothing is proposed for the south side of Lake Drive West, leading from this massive
development over to 1he trail that borders on the west side of Powers. And I'm wondering if
that's an oversight or ifthat could be something that we should be looking at because we're
talking a major collectol: street.
17
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
Hempel: This spring we'll be constructing an 8 foot wide bituminous trail on the north side of
Lake Drive West.
Blackowiak: RiøbL rm..·..-.( .n.:dabøut tile south side and the fact that we're going to have
probably I.OOO¡A:~ you bow liVÌÐlin dIÌ!I new area that are going to be either forced to cross
the street, crass a collector Jáoeet to getto 1he trail. Go down the trail and cross a collector street
again, or could pøssiblykeep~n the same side. That's my major concern. Are we missing an
opportunitytecew get4i.sidewaIk along a collector street that we should be seizing at this point
in time?
Hempel: Chairman, conunissioners. 1heyare proposing the two crosswalks, one of which we
proposed or recommend be deleted which.is the westerly one because another 400-500 feet from
that location is the existing pedestrian crossing to Sunrise Park. They are proposing a crosswalk
from the east drive aisle across Lake Drive West to gain access to the proposed trail on Lake
Drive West. Staff did not view the need to duplicate sidewalks on Lake Drive West. Did not
recommend.
Kind: It's condition number 32. Which needs to be reworded because.. . north side.
Blackowiak: That's what I thought was.. .north side.
Kind: North of the property...
Blackowiak: ...on the north side of the property which I thought we had already...side of the
road but north of the subject site.
Kind: Exactly_
Peterson: Are we (JIt1he same page here?
Kind: Mr. Chairman? Shannin condition number 32 means that sidewalk?
Al-Jaff: Correct.
Kind: This red sidewalk going here.
Aanenson: I would defer to Dave on that one.
Hempel: Weœuld review itfurther that. I guess my initial review of it, I don't believe I had it
in the staffrepœtbecause'tuewere ess...m.11y duplicating a trail system that will be in place this
spring.
Peterson: Based upon the comments you've heard tonight though, as far as the sheer numbers of
. people that are going1D be~the opposite.side of the road, with one crosswalk on a major street,
I think your sensing from a couple of the commissioners that we would like it looked at.
18
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
Hempel: Sure.
Peterson: Other questions?
Conrad: Mr. Chair. a couple. Going back to whatKevin1alked about, the $500 landscaping per
home equates to like $170,000. Yet they do have to IIIXUIIIpIìsh what our buffer yard ordinance
says. So regardless they nave to acmeve that no matter what. So ù.could mean more but no
matter what they have to spend $500 per household.
-
.
Aanenson: Correct.
Conrad: Would you turn to page 6 and clarify the chart for me. I like charts but under density.
Al-Jaff: Under density, instead of8 it should read 12. Instead of9.3 it should read 17.1. And
under project proposal, instead of 4.6 it should read 16.1.
Conrad: Okay. Let's talk buffer yards a little bit. Basically our ordinance talks about trees and
the buffer. If you, because you use the R -16 district for nrtionaIizing some changes to the
agreement, should we be, does the buffer yard ordinance for an R-16 change in terms of
landscaping and distance setback? Or are they pretty much, is it pretty much the same as an R-
l2? And I didn't check that out but that'd be a question I would have because we are using the R-
16 for some of our rationale.
Al-Jaff: It goes under density rather than actually specifying R-12 or R-16. It says high density
residential.
Conrad: Okay. In our ordinance do we have any situations in Chanhassen where we go from
single family to a three story building?
Al-Jaff: Yeah, on Chan View. They're apartrnentsthat were builtin the 60's. They're located on
the north side ofChan View. Then you move from three story apartment building immediately
to single family.
Conrad: Is the elevation that's permitted in an R-12 is 40 feet?
Al-Jaff: Correct. You're referring to the height of the building? .Yes.
Conrad: And this sire, especially where Building B is, is what 12-14 higher than the single
family.
Al-Jaff: Approximately, yes.
..'
Conrad: As you've wm4<-1'A'With 1bcrlevcloper on 1hat part., which to me becomes more sensitive
than the other parts. What.hasDUl'~ve been? Are w¡e applyi~ the ordinance or do we have
a bigger objective for buffering? It's easy to say our ordinance-says;1 00 feet, but do we have a
19
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
vision in terms of what Chanhassen Planning Commission, residents would like in terms of
buffering a single family from a high density?
Al-Jaff: Discussions that we had with the applicant included the use of a berm, which wasn't an
option in this case only because of the layout of the land. We then looked at fences and said was
it, we did not believe that a fence would achieve the objective of screening so we then looked at
evergreens. And if! may. This is what this building would look like. Three story from the
neighborhood to the south. We then discussed the option of having 10 to 12 foot trees. The
ordinance specifically requires an average of 6 feet. In this case they would add 10 to 12 foot
trees and we will need to in time, they will accomplish what the buffer ordinance requires.
Conrad: I noticed you asked the applicant to break that building. Was it basically them came in
once upon a time with a long building and so one of the things you did do was to separate it so
we have 40 and 40 units. So visually speaking staff is saying we're trying to visually break up a
big wall. It sounds like that's one of your.
Aanenson: It has moved a lot. As Shannin indicated we've been working with the developer.
You know when it first came in obviously their first choice was to try to move that building
back. They had a certain number of units they were trying to achieve on the site. They're not
maximizing that. The first goal was to try to see if we could put four somewhere else. Four
stories and make this as low as possible. Eventually we did get to that exercise. The developer
may want to speak to it. It didn't work based on the required use. It further complicated the
underground parking and cost. The next situation was try to break the mass of that up. Where
those homes are obviously is the most sensitive. We looked at things such as balconies versus
bays. The developer also worked hard to try to push the buildings as far forward. We went
through a lot of different exercises in that too. And I'm sure the neighbors can attest to that.
There has been a lot of different targets trying to see which is the most.
Conrad: Palatable.
Aanenson: Exactly. I mean nobody wants the three stories there. I mean we all understand that.
There's a number of units there and we're trying to find the best way to achieve that.
Conrad: So, let me take that further. Why not two stories?
Aanenson: Put the two stories there? They can talk about that. You get the underground
parking.
Conrad: I'm sure they will, but why not two stories?
Aanenson: And the four stories and the cost and the changes, what happens to the other piece.
That was one of the versions which you had in your plan. And what that does. What we, what
the applicant got down to is pushing the building as far forward as they could, moving it away
from the homes and leaving the break in there and trying to change the mass and actually turning
the buildings so you're not looking at that.. . articulation a little bit more.
20
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
Conrad: Why not, okay. So you pushed on this issue as much as you can and what they're
presenting tonight is something that you feel is the best of all alternatives that you've looked at?
Aanenson: Right. We believe, I mean we understand that nobody wants to look at the three
stories. We understand that, and also we have rules under the PUD contract. Can we make them
do the impervious surface? Certainly. I mean they'll take out the inner parking lot. Is that going
to make a better project? Maybe. Maybe not. Can you do, provide additional parking, put two
stories somewhere? Certainly. Is that going to take some money from landscaping budget out
somewhere? Maybe. So certainly they can achieve all the requirements and meet the zone and
that's where we have the discretion to say, you know if they meet the criteria, what we've tried to
do is to say, what can we do to get the best project to be a good neighbor and that's where we've
been and we believe the developer's been working hard at trying to achieve to be the best
neighbor and yet meet their goals. These units are, the cost of construction is $100,000 a unit so
it's expensive when you start changing the stories and they'll talk to that. What that does to cost.
Conrad: So you pursued two stories here, and some other place doesn't work. You pursued
breaking the two buildings into three buildings. You pursued, you know really why not line
Powers with a bigger profile versus?
Aanenson: They can speak to that, their engineers. Just so, just to be clear too. To try to
achieve the underground parking that's required or the attached parking, what that does to the
proximity. Even the building that's separated has parking that's attached underneath to make it
work. So while the building's aren't attached, the parking underneath to make the buildings
function, so it gets a lot into cost as far as excavation and replacement of fill and again to achieve
what they need to do, there's cost per unit.
Conrad: But just to be dear, we do have a contract but we've really never, it is a PUD and we do
have control over building height. It is a PUD.
Aanenson: It's limited to 40 feet. If you were to go over that you would have to amend the
PUD. Correct. Right, and we said if.
Conrad: Because it's not like this is a done deal. A lot of it is done in terms of how many units
can go in here. That is contractually the way it is, but in terms of how it's laid out, where the
units are. How high the units are. That's not a done deal by any means.
Aanenson: Yes it is in the fact that it's guided by anything that's not specifically, and Sharmin
went over this in the beginning. Anything that it's silent on is in the R-12. There are specific
units, 17.1 units an acre is what was given at the time that this was built. It was given the R-12
which had one underground parking. That changed over time. We added an R -16. So there are
specifics, the landscaping callout was one. Otherwise you go to the underlying R-12. Those are
the rules that they contractually are bound to under that PUD agreement. So there are rules that
they followed and they and our recommendation to you is that they are meeting those based on
the plan that was submitted with the two variance requests. If you choose not to give those to
those, there will be changes, modifications made so they can meet. . .
21
Planning Commission MeetiDg- January 5,2000
Conrad: My last point, and I'D ßtQP this but ifwe could find a spot, if they could find a spot for
their approved number ofunits, we haveœntrol to say okay, Outlot B, or Lot B, or Building B,
they're only going to be two1llories high. If they could find a place and our ordinance on that site
for 370 or whatever the numIia' of ~ we could say Building B, two stories high.
Aanenson: You possib1,y co¡jd, We've gone1hrough that exercise. If you can figure out a way
to do it, that'd be great.
Conrad: I'm trying~push~tDWÙBt~ Iœow.
Aanenson: We've all tried to achieve that. When they came in that was our first goal. To try to
minimize the impact on the neighborhood. That's the first exercise we went through. We don't
believe you can accomplish that. In order to give the two stories, to get to two stories you have
to give somewhere else. You've got to go higher, which would require an amendment to the
PUD. There's no way you can accomplish that without giving them a variance. They were
willing to look at that aDd they'll go through that, the reasons why. Certainly. We couldn't
figure out how to make the pll1"king standards, the landscaping requirements, put some amenities
in there, give them the units that they needed to make the numbers...
Peterson: Okay, is that it?
Burton: Mr. Chairman, I had a couple questions. I think I'll just wait until after the applicant.
Peterson: Anyone else?
Sidney: One quick question tor staff. How many motions are we actually looking at? Does the
wetland alteration pennit drop out because they're talking about moving the Building B back?
Al-Jaff: If the building meelstberequired setback, then we don't need a wetland alteration
permit anymore.
Sidney: And with their present thought of IOOving the building back.
Al-Jaff: Correct, and according to the drawing that was faxed to us this morning, you won't need
a wetland alteration permit.
PetersOJr. Okay. Would the applicant or1heir designee wish to address the commission? If so,
please come forward and state your name and address please.
Link Wilson: My JI IJJe isl..iak Wilsoo.I'm from Miller, Hanson, Westerbeck, Berger
Architects. My að~ ill 22a3 StanfOld A ve&ue in St. Paul. If I could have just a minute or two
to just put my boards 1Ip on 1Dè easel and J didn't realize however that they've got an overhead
camera. I brought ovemead projector items which I must prefer this and if I could just at times
just point to these and Iheø tum them over to you at the end of the meeting. I would like to take
just a moment to introduce the rest of the team. I've hidden most of them now with my boards,
but I'd like to introduce ErickRies andlim Lamson. They are two partners from the Lake Susan
22
- ~
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
Hills Partnership. Also Mike Stoebe from INH Property Management and Mike is going to help
me just for a couple of moments to address a couple of questions that have come up about the
type of people that will live here. The rents. The taxes that are contributed to the City. The
overall project cost. Also Bill Sharbono and JeffShopek are here from Loucks Civil Engineers.
Our consultants. And then also Larry Guthrie our legal counsel. All of us together as a team
have really endeavaœd to create a plan here that has a site plan organization and also a building
design that we felt met the intent of your city zoning requirements. An issue which I will
continue to probably repeat during my presentation is that what our intent also was to keep a
high quality level to the design, both the site layout and the buildings themselves. We have had
subsequent to our Deoember 2nd meeting with staff where we handed our final design, and I say
that with quotations, "final design". Because it has changed considerably since we have had
many meetings with the neighborhood and as Sharmin described, even this morning we did have
some evolution to the plan which I think that I can walk you through this evening and just try to
keep it as simple as possible. But also to keep it as simple as possible because there have been
so many different schemes that we have brought before the neighborhood and that have been
faxed to the planning department, I would like to really focus just on this option 2 and that was
what was submitted to the City on December 2nd and then see if we can fmd this evening just
some common ground within this plan that can hopefully meet some of the needs of the
neighborhood. Lastly I do want to say that we respect the planning department's opinion in that
they feel that this plan should be approved in the form that it's in now. But as you'll see over the
next probably just 20 minutes, if you could give me that much time, I'll try to just show you the
evolution of how this has moved slightly. I also need to spend just a couple minutes on site
history and also the parkland dedication. These are two things that Sharmin did a very good job
in her report, but I just wanted to go through that and just remind people that this particular piece
of property, and this is the entire piece here, was purchased in 1972 and developed as a nine part
parcel starting with single family homes in this area in 1972. As the different phases developed,
the final phase was this townhome development here, which was just built a couple of years ago.
So really since 1972 this red object here on the screen has always been slated as multi-family
housing. Even previous to neighbors moving in to this area here, and I think that's an important
component to remember that this has always been a part of this plan. We did not prepare this
plan. It's dated down here and it's quite an old drawing. In addition, Sharmin touched upon the
parkland dedication that in 1987 this green portion right here, 5.6 acres was dedicated to the city
as park. Now previously that was owned by the Lake Susan Partnership by the group that Erick
and Jim are representing this evening. And this is my understanding and just very simple
interpretation of that, but at that time what was agreed upon as a contract was that an R-16
density, which is 377 units. It might be 375 units. We don't have nearly that many units on the
site, was agreed could be built here. However, the surface appurtenances and the buildings had
to meet the R-12 statutes at that time. So I'm just going to take a quick break from that, and I'm
going to let Mike come up just real quick and talk about just the property management for the
building. He really has only five points to cover and then I can get back to just describing the
appearance of the buiklings and then the site design itself.
Mike Stoebe: Good evening. I'm Mike Stoebe. I reside at 3122 Club View Court in St. Cloud,
and I can also attest to.the poor road conditions. I was invited here this evening by the
development group toMdress five concerns that were raised by the neighborhood and the first of
which is rental property value to the city and it's tax base. According to the development team
23
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
the targeted total development cost may well exceed $30 million. The correspondent taxes will
be based upon the, as we know the assessor's estimated market value and the tax capacity
extension rate. For comparison sake, residential single family households have a tax class rate
for those homes exceed $76,000 in value of 1.65%. Apartments general occupancy apartments
like these have a tax class rate of2.4% so if you look at the variance it's .75% which translates
into the apartments having a tax class rate that's 45% higher than single family homes. One of
the concerned residents asked about, or wanted to have a breakdown of the real estate taxes by
sector so I contacted the Carver County Auditor's office and Link, could you pass that out please.
Link Wilson. I did.
Mike Stoebe: Okay. Thank you. Second,item refers to monthly rents. The preliminary
scheduled target opening rents for this development will exceed $1.00 per square foot. This
pricing will translate into one bedroom's exceeding $800 monthly. Two bedrooms ranging from
$900 to $1,300 depending on floorplan, and three bedrooms exceeding $1,300 monthly. The
parking amenity that was referred to earlier, those base rents will include one underground
parking stall. Property maintenance and upkeep, which is a very valid concern, this apartment
development will be a multi-million dollar investment that will be maintained at a high level,
both short and long term. The planned construction type that the architect will refer to shortly
will ease the physical plant maintenance. Although both preventative and long term maintenance
schedules will be in effect, we refer to a site this size and our firm manages greater than 5,000
units. We have properties this size and larger. We refer to it as a self contained site, meaning
that there will be a full compliment of professionally trained staff and in the maintenance arena
itself it will probably have, once fully built out, probably three plus full time maintenance
persons. Or personnel, excuse me. The property will be inspected regularly. Lenders will put in
place or require escrows and replacement reserves for capital improvements so I'm rather certain
it will be very well maintained. The last item was a concern relating to admission procedures
and policies. Management will thoroughly and carefully screen all applicants for admission.
Screening will include criminal background checks, credit reports and obtaining previous rental
histories. All residents will be required to abide with both written lease policies and with
handboolç rules. Our rules and regulations are well enforced and we're known for running a very
tight ship. Thank you.
Link Wilson: Mike touched on the fact that what we were geared towards was really a
maintenance free structure. Shown on the elevations here is a masonry structure all the way to
the base of the third floor. Above that is a vinyl siding band that runs continuously around each
bnilding and that was done really to create more of a horizontal line throughout the whole
project. To try to bring a horizontal continuum that emphasizes the horizontal rather than
vertaIity of the project. Weare within the height restrictions which in this particular area, the
restrictions are 40 feet. We are to the midpoint of the roof at 37 feet, and that's actually being a
little bit conservative. It's 36.85. So we are under the height restrictions for the project. In
addition, we have after discussions with the neighborhood, we previously developed the best
appearance for this project would be to have a 6: 12 roof. We have subsequently lowered that
down to a4:l2 roof which over a 32 foot rise, which is Y:. of the roof side, it does bring the roof
down quite a bit. The visual quality of the buildings themselves, they're very important to us.
They're very important to the owners of the project. However first and foremost, and Mike
24
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
touched on this, we do want to be good neighbors. And we also want to be good neighbors
within the project itself. And so that means with 344 units that we need adequate space within
the community itself'3I"ound each building so that there is a feeling oflight and ventilation and
space for each tenant that is renting there. And as Mike outlined, these are very high rents and
the clientele there will be very demanding. Also... the neighbor is being a neighbor to the east
and to the south and we've tried to take that into account in our meetings with the neighborhood
and this has probably been the hardest part of our task is trying to find a happy median. And one
of the things that we've done initially, we have 375 units that we could play with here. We only
have 344 units. That's what we felt comfortable on this site. In addition, Sharmin had touched
upon the initial design that we sùbmitted to the city and that project was a continuous Building B
which stretched along the south side, which subsequently is right against these properties to the
south. After that we did break up, and I'm giving the camera person a workout here. We broke
these buildings up as Sharmin had discussed previous. Also we feel very comfortable with the
idea along this face and Sharmin showed the image here that we can create bay extensions for
the living rooms here which will give an added amount of privacy to these people's yards. We
also do have a buffer zone here, and I will talk more about this 100 foot setback, which by the
way it was brought up during just the discussions that what are the setbacks for instance in an R-
16 zone the setbacks are 50 feet. So we're 100, which meets all the requirements. In this buffer
zone what we are proposing to do is to plant spaded trees. Not balled and burlapped trees, so we
can get spaded pines at 10 to 12 feet high. They will be planted at that height. ... tree spaded
trees are going to create a 70 foot high visual fence between the neighbors to the south and to the
proposed Buildings B I and B2. But I think that they do help. Another focus that we had to the
design of the project was that it was more of an interior focus. Now this is not a landscape plan
per se, and I'm just saying this as an aside. But I think that we will have this many trees and I
think the commission is correct in that $500 per unit doesn't even touch the surface of what
we're proposing for a quality project here. And we do feel comfortable that we can provide to
the City Council a landscape plan that is designed by a landscape architect that gives species.
That gives heights.. That gives diametelS of trunks aDd we øn provide that information to you
in the future. I want to touch on just the sound environmental practices and Jeff Shopek from
Loucks Engineers can answer any questions that you may have about cut and fill on the site. The
existing slopes on the site. The heroic effort that it would take to for instance cut 6 feet of grade
out of this entire site. Just to give an example, and I'm stealing information from Jeff here. But
from the 1987 aerial photographs, what was seen as dumped on the site from surrounding
construction, if you spread that fill out on the site it would only be 2 inches of dirt on top of that
site. So it's literally just a thimble filII of earth that was moved around on these adjacent
properties in this very, very large area. Lastly before I move on to really the three critical issues
this evening for this pJan. is J.ÙSO the interior focus once again. I think that we've got a beautiful
facility in the center of this project in which all the occupants of this project can use. Swimming
pool, wading pool, very large oommunity mcility and pJaygounds. We do have, I don't know if
the camera can focus m. This isjust uendering of that facility itseIf with the playground and the
pools, and I think iliat i!'sa reaI1y nWe bture that againfocnses this community inward.
Probably one ofthemostdifficultdecisioos this evening will be the areas where we're asking for
variances. Curreot1y.u.bat ìsœquiœdof4üs site is that there be a 32% impervious surface area
on this site. We-aarestlyinm:34.7.· Now we can bring this down to substantially less than 32,
and I'm going to get like this. This particular plan shows a slightly different concept, and this
gets back to my originaIdiscussion of quality. What we have on this particular plan, and on a
25
.... Planning,commission-Meeting -'1anuary.5.; 2000
'"
night like tonight it makes a lot of sense. This Ì5 826 foot wide drive aisle and it provides you
access in and out of the __''Ii visitor or as an occupant. You have your choice of where you
want to go on'the site.;iIs youprogl'ej!s through this boulevard essentially. It can be tree lined. It
can help just tò~reaDralot better<lllmOS~ for people to look out upon from across the way.
Their view is someWbat1llíffPrM iJythis-boeieWrd. 'But what this does is it adds 34.6% surface
area. This parti<:U1ar$Cbàøe, and'] know it'sreaI1yhard to read, basically gets you down to less
than 32% but as yeu~.you lR.ftOwdrMng through a parking lot, and then you have
another drive.and..a- ~.dñvefßròugb.apaàång Jot and then you get out. Now this still meets
the firedt.y¡U~.Atum_.-ids..,Itmeets1be~ofyour code, but we don't think that the
quality of that driving CIqIerieøce and ihatlivå1gexperience is as good as this one here. So we're
willing to take your guidance. This is an eng;~ plan prepared by Jeff Shopek of Loucks.
We can do this. We know that the grades work but we think that this is a superior approach.
One of the meetings that we had at Jim and Lois' home, and I don't know if they're here this
evening. Lois had asked that this building right here, this is Lois' house, is 100 feet away. She
asked is there.any way that you can move this back. She'd like it ISO feet away from her home.
We tried in every way, shape and form to get this ISO feet back. All we could do without really
compromising what we felt was the interior community, was to get it back 125 feet, and you can
see. I know this is very small. That dimension is 125 feet. We might be able to push it 127.5,
right in that area. Wewanted to be conservative and we've got it at 125. So what that does, just
so you can see it a little bit easier, it takes and it moves this building back. We also have access,
two points ofatranceimo this. This is one continuous parking...below grade that you don't
see. We would then eliminate this egress and outlet into here so that you just have one point of
access. And for an 80 unit-parkingstructure, that's not a problem. We do that all the time. This
is nice. We've got two ways in and out but we can make that work and we feel comfortable with
that and we feel that we can offer this plan up as a solution that works tonight. So what that does
is it gives us l2Sfeetbetween Lòis' property.and our building. It also does another thing. Is it
allows us to get more tree: spaded pine treés here. It allows us to get those pine trees higher. The
last point is that cUl'!'CDdywehave, we're short 36 stalls below grade. Those are heated and
conditioned .stalls belowi!l8clt-{)ne of these. By1he code. What we're also proposing that we
could do is build a sma1l'e1empn( under the paOOng garage that comes in here. We can make it
work. It's extremely expensive. Just for those 36 stalls it's going to cost us probably half a
million dollars to do that. So what we're looking for your guidance this evening that we would
want to do in order to compensate for that, is to be able to remove some quality level from this
park. We would still have a park here. We would still have open space but we need to pay for
that $500,000 of parking. This community area, as nice of a feature as it is, is not a requirement
in any of tI;1e codes. Right now we're probably at-about a million dollars for all of these
appurtenances here. Sn....w.w we've got:to take.$SOO,OOO out of that. I'm confident that we
can. But we can get Ù)eJ.S $TIs. Also, we have been able to move this building here out of the
wetland. All if A doing'is.just nippiøg the·wClftand. So as we discussed that's really not even an
issue. So what we're ta1Iing about WnigÞt aile two items. One is surface area. Hard surface on
the site. We can make1hat work. but we fir:el it'slesser quality. Parking, 1.5 stalls below grade,
we can make that'WOdc1oo but we've got to ~ some quality level from this parkland in the
center. I also just want to comment that we've got a design team in place. We're confident also
that items such as ,wa1ar and seweraccess¡¡lans. I already talked about professionally engineered
landscape plans. C..-iing and erosion control p1ans. . Site lighting. The developer is willing to
escrow a portion, what they feel. is a percentage of this entire development that will contribute to
~
~
26
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
the traffic light here. The developer is willing to escrow funds to participate in the future light at
this comer. So some of those details such as communication with tran stop and MTC to get a
bus stop along here and fmd a great place for it, we're confident that we can do that and
incorporate that into the plans that then will go onto council. I thank you very much for your
time. I know this took a bit of time to explain all this, and I would just ask that prior to closing
the discussion this evening if! could just be given 5 minutes to respond to any comments
regarding engineering or setbacks. That I just be given a couple minutes at the very end of the
evening. Thank you very much.
Peterson: Before you go away we might have some questions for you so, questions of the
applicant.
Kind: Yes Mr. Chairman I have a few. Building materials that were passed around here don't
show entire pieces. For instance the siding. At Centennial Hill, which Sharmin directed me to
go take a look at, there's a beveled type of siding, which I don't really care for. I prefer a flat
siding. It looks more realistic.
Link Wilson: What we used at Centennial Hill was what's called in the business a ship lap. So
there are different kinds of siding. Shapes and profiles that can be used. That's very easy. I'd
be happy to have you write that into tonight's discussion.
Kind: And could you speak to the shingles as well. Centennial Hill I noticed that they're kind of
rippling. It's a very flat shingle as opposed to a textured shingle. What type of shingle are we
looking at here?
Link Wilson: Well, you're really taxing my memory on what shingle was used at Centennial
Hill, but I believe that it was a 25 year Owens Coming shingle. What we've gone to right now,
and Consumer Reports calls it the number one shingle to use in this part of the country, is the
Certainteed XT25. It's a 25 year shingle. I think it will hold up very well. Also on that project,
you may just see some of that ripple effect may be that, I've noticed this too that some of the
trusses seem to show through 24 inches on center and I can't explain why that is. When it's hot.
When it's cold and sometimes it changes.
Kind: Okay. And then could you speak to the two story brick concept. I really like that idea. I
think it visually makes the building look shorter. But it staggers up and down. What's your
rationale there? I would rather see that just be all one continuous line.
Link Wilson: Okay, where it's staggering here?
Kind: Yes.
Link Wilson: I guess you know and these are extremely long buildings but what we're trying to
do right near the entry, and that's what you see here, is, you've got this line coming up and then
we tried to build up the brick at the entry just to create more attention to the entry. We also feel
that entries are important. Frankly, I don't know why the brick does jump sort of around right
here and that can be just one continuous line.
27
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
Kind: Okay, that's good. I like the all brick going up at the entry but why it jumps up and down
in that area.
Link Wilson: Right, and I guess I see, I'm just looking over here. I feel that this is probably
more of a consistent run right here that you're going to see, which is right at the top of the
second floor window.
Kind: Yeah. And then the drawings here, is this with a 6:12 or a4:l2 pitch?
Link Wilson: This is with a 6:12 pitch but you know, we want to work with the neighborhood
and especially Buildings B1 and B2. I think those really need to be 4:12just to play down. If
you'd like to see all the other buildings A, C and D as 6:12, certainly I like that aesthetic.
Kind: The height that you mentioned, 37 at the midpoint which is how you measure buildings.
Link Wilson: Yeah, it's a 36.85. That's with a 4:12.
Kind: Thank you.
Link Wilson: And still at a 6:12 we're way under the 40 feet.
Kind: Moving right along. The evergreens on the south property line, do you have a quantity in
mind or a density as to how frequent they would be? I'm thinking a condition here.
Link Wilson: Well no. What we showed here was trying with Building, and this is an old model
that just shows B, the B Building continuous. You know we're trying to create a stagger along
that hill so that if you looked in a line that you're going to see a continuous band of pine trees.
Now that's not to say that when you walk up that hill you're not going to have trees that are so
tight that you can't walk through them but they're going to create a visual screen. And they are
going to be 10 to 12 feet high. I can fmd out what the diameter of those is and we can try to
create a stagger. I always think though that when you, it's not so much of a problem when you
put in a larger tree but it has been a problem for us when we put in smaller trees, is that
especially with pines, we end up coming back 8 years later and cutting down half of them
because they're so overwhelming each other and I think that that's a danger. I know that there's
an immediate buffer that we're trying to achieve here, but I also think that you can do
environmental damage too and you'll either have to cut down the trees or they're just going to
die and I think that even looks worst.
Kind: What type of species do you normally put in when you spade in a tree?
Link Wilson: Oh man. That one's over my head and.
Kind: Well, you mentioned the pines just rang a bell in my head. Every pine I've seen along a
highway is brown and I think it needs to be a higher grade tree than that.
28
f-
~;,
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
Link Wilson: Well there is a species of spruce that you see that in the wintertime.
Kind: That are all brown too?
Link Wilson: Well it turns sort of a reddish color. But I think that we need to go back to our
landscape architect and get a tree that's going to (a), be able to participate with some of the soils
that get near this wetland area. And (b), are trees that are going to work well on a slope and
that's defining then a very narrow grade of tree that we can use there.
Kind: You also brought up the point about how they die. What happens if they do die? How
long do you replace them for?
Link Wilson: Well, I really have to search my memory here to think about the City of
Chanhassen's requirements but from a management standpoint, they're going to be required to
maintain their grounds. And especially if we consider this as a buffer zone. So I think that you
can hold the development team to, that's why we've got to get a species that works within the
soil type and the grade there so that they don't die. But our feet are going to be held to the fire to
replace trees that aren't living.
Kind: Especially if they're planted in the buffer, it's going to be tough to keep watered because
that's going to be steep. Oh, and that south border, could those trees be planted right away with
Phase I?
Link Wilson: Well, that's interesting because we brought that up both at neighborhood meetings
and then amongst ourselves. There's a danger there iflet's say just in the spring, right now we
went out and we planted those. That could work. However, you know construction is a messy
business. As we talked about, it's $100,000 per unit to build these and even with that you have
construction people that are trying to move as efficiently as they can and my concern is that
some of those trees will be killed by construction workers who are just trying to get their job
done expediently as they're trying to keep their profit and loss margin working so it can certainly
be done lower down but I get real concerned about those trees during the construction process.
That even some of, just the movement near them can kill them. Especially right now. They're
more fragile. And right now we're seeing construction 12 months out of the year.
Kind: I have a question about the commons area. I love the pool idea. I mean I think in this
level of apartment I think a pool is really important. The playground that is in the commons area
seems a little redundant to me because of how close this development is to that Sunset Ridge
Park. Have you considered other more adult oriented kinds of activities, maybe basketball or
tennis?
Link Wilson: That's a good question. I guess the one thing that at times we get complaints
about is that if we don't have a place for kids to play, then they're on the peripheries of the
project finding another place to play. And so at risk of maybe limiting some of the adult
recreation, we felt like we didn't want to get that kind of a criticism. We want to keep those kids
in sort of a monitored area. It's certainly something that we could look at, but I also have a
problem with sometimes the nighttime activities that occur on tennis courts and basketball
29
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
courts. Other people are disturbed who have different work habits and sleep habits than
hoopsters.
Kind: You've convinced me. And then I have a petty thing to ask you to consider and that is in
the park area, the totlot and the playground area, I would love to see benches for moms.
Whenever I go to a park, I don't do it as much anymore. My daughter's getting older but that
was always a pet peeve of mine that there was no place for mom to hang out while the kids were
playing. That's all for now.
Peterson: Thank you. Other questions?
Sidney: Well Mr. Chairman, maybe two quick questions and I might think of some more here. I
guess back to materials, what will the balconies be made of that you're proposing to be, you're
looking for something maintenance free, then I'm wondering if these are going to have to be
painted or not.
Link Wilson: Yeah, that's true. The balconies will be made out of treated lumber, 6 x 6 posts.
Probably 2 inch by 2 inch pickets that are running vertically. That's really just to keep kids
from using it as a ladder to. . . so that is true. The balconies will not be made of maintenance free
materials. They will have to be painted.
Sidney: And they will be on a routine basis to maintain the quality of the building.
Link Wilson: Yeah. But if you look in the percentage of surface area on the building, and I'm
just looking at this rendering. We're really only talking about this particular area right here.
That is vinyl siding which is maintenance free. This is vinyl siding, so we're really only talking
about 2 x 2 pickets which are there and then a 2 x 12 facia board right there. And another thing
that we've just found as an experience there is that we like to leave those unpainted for one
growing season because it is treated lumber. Then if you come back and paint it after that point,
the paint will last longer if you use an oil based primer with a water base cover on it.
Sidney: And then I guess my second question, I still can't visualize bay windows and what that
actually would look like. To me it sounds like it might look kind of funny. Will you have
renderings or drawings of that?
Link Wilson: Sure. I think though a better thing to do is just to look at the north side of
Centennial Hill. Those bays, they're extensions of the living room so you have a living room
which is the same size as let's say in the senior building or Building D, and then that bay just
extends out making their living room larger. And so at Centennial Hill those bays are two stories
high whereas here they'll be three stories high. And to my knowledge we haven't had any
problems with those, and I think they look nice so it's just right out your door, you can go take a
look at them.
Sidney: Okay.
30
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
Peterson: Tagging onto that same question. I think that one of the concerns that I had was, will
the bay windows make the building more onerous versus the breaking up of the side of the
balconies? Another perspective perhaps.
Link Wilson: I should have really brought photos of Centennial Hill, but I don't particularly
think that the north side of Centennial Hill has that sort of heroic scale to it. And you can really
see a comparison there because on the south side you've got three story balconies and then on
the north side you've got the bays but I don't particularly find them too out of scale really with
the development itself. And we're also talking about, even though these two buildings are
broken up, still the scale of those balconies in comparison to the façade is still fairly small.
Peterson: Okay. Other questions?
Blackowiak: Yes Mr. Chairman. Talk to me about, what I would like to say is the proposed trail
on the south side of Lake Drive West. What do you think about a trail?
Link Wilson: Well, if I just look at it from a dollar and cents standpoint, if you have 5 feet wide,
4 inch deep concrete on.
Blackowiak: Oh forget concrete. Bituminous.
Link Wilson: Right. What I'm saying is what we have proposed right now is 5 feet wide, 4 inch
thick concrete, you know controlled joints 4 feet on center, 9 inch sand base below. Probably to
do an 8 foot wide bituminous trail with less subsurface material, it's probably a toss-up in cost.
Blackowiak: Okay, so you were proposing a concrete trail is what you're saying?
Link Wilson: Well, as a sidewalk.
Blackowiak: A sidewalk okay. I'm talking about the length from the project, all the way east to
Powers Boulevard.
Link Wilson: Right. You're just, you're talking about from the park all the way to here.
Blackowiak: Right. We're talking about the same thing so okay.
Link Wilson: I guess from a cost standpoint I see the two as pretty much would offset each
other.
Blackowiak: Yeah, I just want to make sure that it is in there and that we're on the same page
with that.
Link Wilson: And on a night like tonight it'd be a lot easier just to pull your Bobcat out of a
heated garage and just run it right down the sidewalks so from that standpoint it could make
sense.
31
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
ßlackowiak: Okay. Well as long as you're planning to do one, that's what I'm concerned about.
Link Wilson: So what you would like to do however is to write it into this evening's proposal
that.. .
.
Blackowiak: Well I'm thinking it is but I just wanted to make sure that you were also
understanding the same thing because condition 32 I guess it was talking about the sidewalk and
I just read it wrong or just interpreted it in a different manner. So I just want to make sure that
we've got that in there. That it's going to be on the south side of Lake Drive and meet Powers
Boulevard. Then I'm happy.
Peterson: Other questions?
Conrad: Yes, a couple Mr. Chair. If we had given you 50% impervious surface, would you have
done this project differently?
Link Wilson: No, probably not. I think we have a layöut that works well. In fact, right now I
think we would have the luxury, if we built this 36 unit car structure there, we actually have the
luxury by the ordinance to eliminate some of this parking and add some more trees, which I think
makes for a better interior court.
Comad: So your longer building footprints, what's that? Why do you choose to have two long
buildings? Why not break them up? Is that just purely a cost factor on your part? Wasn't
because of impervious surface. It was simply one building was cheaper to build than two with
the same number of units?
Link Wilson: For one I just want to get back to the plan that we're focusing on, because this is
Option I. So when you say long building you're referring to Building A?
Conrad: Building A is a long building.
:
Link Wilson: There's no question that there are some efficiencies on this project, and yet with
all the efficiencies that we've tried to build in, what we're seeing right now is a construction cost
of $1 00,000 per apartment unit. And it's incredible because you look at the square footage. The
number of bedrooms. You just can't believe that these buildings are costing that much. But they
are. And so with the bond market as it just rose yesterday, which is how this project will be
funded. Every time the bond market shifts it's raising the price and really every month that we
wait, regardless right now of what the economy is doing, it's really the shortage of labor. The
price of construction just continues to rise. So we've got to create some efficiencies in how we
build and how we group ourselves together to, I even think it's a national problem. It's a city
problem. Creating affordable housing. And the only way that we can do this is by creating
efficiencies.
Comad: My next question. Building B2 is the one that bothers me the most. You have it
directly facing the residents. Now architecturally, which I try to stay away from architecture
things but in this case why didn't you use angles to reduce the impact? You know instead of
32
- t
[
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
being perfectly perpendicular to the neighbors, did you look at some other alternatives that put it
at a, every other. building, Building Bl angles away, even though it fits within your site plan. It
angles away. I think: that lessens the impacts. B2 is right up face forward, right in the face. Did
you look at anything else?
Link Wilson: Well here again I think it's how does an apartment unit layout? Typically a one
bedroom apartment has an outside length of27 feet. A two bedroom apartment anywhere from
36 to 38 feet. Sa now we're talking about inside that building let's just say for instance if we try
10 create as you say some type of angles that perhaps would mitigate, let's just say this type of a
structure in here. At least to me, I don't see that that wall, even though it may have some 45
degree angles and some 30 degree angles, at least personally I don't see how those angles
mitigate the fact that that building is there. And that was one thing tonight. We can't pretend
that the buildings aren't there. They will exist. They will be to the facia line, you know 28 foot
I 1/8 feet high and we can't escape that whether we angle the wall or not. Also, the more angles
you create the more inefficiencies you have within the floorplan itself.
Conrad: I don't buy that but, because all your visuals are angled. So there's got to be something
in terms of an angle that makes it more pleasing. So you haven't really looked at angling is what
you, did you look at it? I don't think you did...
Link Wilson: Well right now as you can see, I mean we have, and I'm just going to flip this
back. We do have along Powers, and also along Lake Drive West, really a continuum of three
story wall other than the entrances into that courtyard area. Really along here there is more
break for people to see through. I know that in England there are some super blocks that just
take you know this entire strip and they just connect it along without any ability for a person to
move through ora car through and they're not really pleasant places.
Conrad: No they're not, and that's what I'm trying to prevent here. I am trying to make some
transition. I don't think our ordinance took care of this situation very well. It just didn't. Our
ordinance is taking, you know it just really never considered what was going to be there in terms
of the elevation and the height of the property that you're on so, but basically you have a contract
that allows you to do these things and I think you're doing a pretty good job but I don't think,
you know so I'm really trying to somehow see if there was a transition. Staff has worked with
you for quite a while. I'm still not convinced we made the right transition. The neighbors will
state their opinion in a few seconds but I'm just not convinced that we really, even though you're
legally permitted to do what you're doing. If it was me, and I guess I'll challenge the Planning
Commission. I'd have seven buildings here versus five. I'd break them up. I'd put them at
different angles. And I'm not trying to reduce density at all, and maybe that can't be done.
Maybe what I'm suggesting is impossible but density is not an issue. You get the 370 or the 340
or whatever. I'm just looking at what fits into a better transition than what we have right now.
B, Building B2 is not a very good transition. I think everything else works so I was, I'm curious
what the rest of the Planning Commission feels about that. I think the rest, so anyway. Those
were my~uestions and thanks for your comments.
Peterson; Other questions?
33
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
Kind: Yes Mr. Chairman, I forgot to speak to my sidewalk ideas to see what the applicant thinks
of them. Alison reminded me of them. I have a list of it here and I don't know if it's better to go
over there and put it up or to just show it to you like this. But it's the same site plan. Alison was
talking about this sidewalk going all the way down here. That's condition 32 I believe. Interior
wise this commons area sidewalk stops here. I'd like to see it continue across to that point. I
think if somebody was walking along here.. .go back through this building and cross here and
then go back over here to get out to the street is ridiculous.
Link Wilson: I think that's a good suggestion. Perhaps, I don't know if it's easier to see here
what Mrs. Sidney is saying, ifI'm hearing you right...
Kind: Kind. That's alright. Our names are a little off I'm sure.
Link Wilson: To just continue this sidewalk to this location.
Kind: Exactly. And then.
Link Wilson: ...along there and then connect it then across. We thought this was a better place
to, as a transition to come across.
Kind: I would maybe leave that one there, I don't know. I'm talking about this one in addition.
And then I think Alison spoke to this but I just want to make sure I'm clear on it. This sidewalk
that's going along Lake Drive West will continue pastthe said properties and then there will be a
path or a sidewalk that would allow pedestrians to get to that Sunset Ridge Park.
Link Wilson: I'm wondering if anyone else from our team can speak to the connection to the
park. I don't know whether there is currently a sidewalk in this park area. I can't speak to that.
Kind: I tried to pay attention when I was there. I don't think there is. It would be great. The
PUD agreement says that when the developers in the area, when the streets are developed that's
when the sidewalks will get put in and it would be nice to have, people who are on wheels
especially be able to get to that park. Playground. Whatever. Those were my sidewalk things.
And then the wetland, was that spoken to? Just this site plan here is now what's...
Link Wilson: We're out of the wetland so really no wetland mitigation is required.
Kind: So that's this site plan here?
Link Wilson: That is correct. Because that's the edge of the wetland so we pulled ourselves out
of there.
Kind: And that moves that Bl building. Which B building?
Link Wilson: This is B I.
Kind: B2, that moves that one back 25 more feet.
34
Planning-commissionMeC:I:Ï:D!-ñmnIry 5, 2000
Link Wilson: ..l~more feet.
Kind: Total?
Link Wilson: Right.
Kind: Okay.. .T1Iank you.
Link Wilson: ¥QUbet
Peterson: Other questions?
Sidney: Yes Mr. Chair, I thought of one more thing. I guess I haven't heard any discussion of
senior housing and Bùi1ding D. What, are you doing anything special for the seniors that would
occupy that building in terms of amenities or what do you have planned?
Link Wilson: The seniors asked the same question at one of our neighborhood meetings.
There's a very active senior community in Chanhassen and right now subsequent to May, 1999
building codes have changed within ali apartment units, whether it be family or senior and so this
is really a good thing for seniors in that all apartments in the State of Minnesota now have to be
built basically to senior standards. So within the units, no. There really are no changes other
than some reaUy,sùbtle ones when:: let's say we don't have a microwave over the top of the stove
and we have it on the counter. We.don't do cabinets over the top of a refrigerator because we
found that seniors climb up on chairs and are more apt to fall. We have bathroom doors that
swing out radterthan swing iIr.because if someone falls in the bathroom, then it's easier to rescue
them andwhät not. The otherdiffeænces in Building D would be that there is slightly more
conferenæspace. But 1!t'this tiIne we don 't have any space for let's say a commercial kitchen.
It would Dnly.'be'for greater daytime-activities.
Sidney: Would you oonsider that?
Link Wilson: "We could leave space for a commercial kitchen. For instance at Centennial Hills
there's certainly space for a commercial kitchen but in that kitchen right now it's just plastic
laminate counter tops and wood faced cabinets so that would have to be something that. . . and
we'd .at this time.mther stay away from the State licensing that that requires to have the Health
Department review yearly commercial kitchens so at this time there will be space for it but we
would not be._.
Peterson: :OdIec.q~{ Okay.¡1bank-you. May I have a motion and a second for a public
hearing please.
Kind moved.,SidDey.neonded'to upeø:tbe public hearing. The public hearing was opened.
;:;.
Peterson: This is a public ,hearing. Anyone wishing to address the commission, please come
forward and state your name and ..dn,.,.~s please.
35
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
Doug Wilder: Yeah, my name is Doug Wilder and I'm going to have Dave and Bill also up here
to help out with this.
Bill Weber: My name is Bill Weber. I live at 1290 Lake Susan Hills Drive.
Dave Ruegg: Dave Ruegg at 1250 Lake Susan Hills Drive.
Doug Wilder: I'm at 1320. This is going to be kind of a tag team, because we've been working
on some different pieces together. I think just before we start we'd like to state that we are not
against the use of Outlot A for high density, multiple family residential use. We understand this
outlot has been slated for this type of use for a long time. That's not a problem. At the same
time however we believe that the existing site proposal does not meet Chanhassen city code and
zoning ordinance requirements. And that will be the focus of our presentation tonight. What's
difficult for us is that we're talking about a number of different plans tonight and we've been
talking with the planning department. With the architect. With developer. Kind of going back
and forth with a lot of different things for a number of weeks now and we're not really sure what
to really focus on but because this staff report is what is being considered tonight, we're going to
focus on the staff report because that is really the thing that is under consideration. We don't
know and we don't have information before us that really gives us a feel for what the end result
is going to be. We don't see information that shows us what the sight lines are going to be with a
6:12 roof versus a 4:12 roof. I think it's going to be a 4:12 so we don't know what that's going
to look like. We don't know what it's going to look like with bay windows, We'd like to see
that before a vote is taken on this proposal. And for that reason, as we go through this, we're
looking to you to reject the site plan approval as it stands today in the report. And to reject or
table the hard surface coverage amendment, the amended parking standards until we've had a
chance to really look at the entire picture. We have six different issues. I guess one of them
we've already dealt with but I think I'll use that as landscape instead but we do believe that the
city has a relatively high level of discretion in approving amendments to PUD's. And it's our
understanding that any amendment to a PUD must be consistent with the city's comprehensive
plan. We believe that the current proposal is not consistent with the comprehensive plan and
there are six different areas that we'd like to show that. In the hard surface requirements, the
parking requirements, the topography and original elevation requirements, transitional
reqnirements and buffering setback requirements. In our opinion the first three issues are
relatively minor issues. While the last three issues are major concems for us as residents. How
we deal with the minor issues depends on how we deal with the major issues. And as a group of
concerned citizens we want to cooperate with the City ofChanhassen. We want to cooperate
with the developer. We want to cooperate with the architect, but until we see the finished plan
and have something concrete to look at, we're going to ask the Planning Commission to require
strict adherence to the original PUD agreement, the Chanhassen City Code and the zoning
ordinances. With that in mind, the hard surface requirements are the first thing that we've
looked at. The original PUD agreement signed on 11/16/87 granted the higher density of a R-16
zoning district to what was originally zoned as an R-12 zoning district. That PUD agreement
goes on to state that the maximum percentage of allowable impervious surface on Outlot A is
32%. The applicant again is proposing 34%. This is not a major change. We're willing to
cooperate in seeing that this amendment is eventually granted but we believe that the rationale
36
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
\
used by the plAnning department is in error. When it seeks to justify the additional hard surface
coverage in saying that the R-16 district permits maximum hard surface coverage up to 50%.
This is not an R-16 district. This is an R-12 district with a variance for R-16 density only, not for
hard surface coverage or anything else. The original PUD agreement states unequivocally that
except as modified hereiu. the development shall be in accordance with the uses, standards and
requirements of1he R-12 zoning district. The PUD agreement calls for 32. So for the time being
we would ask that the original PUD agreement be honored, with or without the sidewalks.
Second, parking requirements. The PUD requirement or agreement governing proposes or
requires parking to meet the R-12 standards. R-12 standards call for 1.5 enclosed parking spaces
per unit. The current proposal has a range of 1.28 to 1.48, and even then we don't know what is
happening with Building D because these are senior housing units and it could very well be that
when we're all said and done we're going to have a total number of enclosed stalls in the range
of 1.3. And so again we believe that the reasoning for granting this amendment as put forth in
the Planning Commission staff report is faulty. Staff reports seeks to draw comparison to an R-
16 district. This is not an R-16 district. It's an R-12 district. And as noted above the original
PUD agreement states except as modified herein, the development shall be in accordance with
the use and standards and requirements of the R-12 zoning district. So again, until some of our
more pressing issues are resolved we would ask that the current amendment regarding parking
requirements be rejected and that the original PUD agreement be honored. With regard to
landscaping. One of the things that we found was, and maybe I'll address that a little later.
Someone mentioned earlier that whether or not this $500 landscape fee could be increased and I
do believe that it's within the rights of the Planning Commission to do that. In the original PUD
agreement it states that for the first five years the city could not make any new amendments or
changes to that PUD agreement. That was in 1987. That lapsed in 1992. The PUD agreement
states therefore, notwithstanding anything in this agreement to the contrary to the full extent
permitted by State law, the City may require compliance with any amendments to the city's
comprehensive plan following that five year period. So the City is in the position to require that
the proposal add additional dollars for landscaping if you so choose, and you're also in the
position to require some ðther things that we'd like to get into in a minute. Topography and
original elevation. When the PUD agreement was originally signed in 1987 there was little or no
hill on the southeastern portion of Outlot A. The hill currently standing is a result of grading
done to the back yards of the single family homes adjoining Outlot A. And the current elevation
of that hill is 10 to 20 feet higher and 20 to 30 feet wider than what was originally there. The
staff report however states that the site plan should preserve the site in it's natural state. And that
designing grade changes, this is a quote, designing grade changes to be in keeping with the
general appearance of the neighboring developing areas. It also states that the site plan should
create a hannonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features. In our
opinion the site has not been preserved in it's natural state since the signing of the PUD
agreement. You may disagree with me but I think it's a little more than a thimble full. It's tons
and tons of topsoil timt should have been hauled away in 1989 that were instead relocated onto
Outlot A creating a bill upon which Building B is now supposed to stand. And what many
residents now face is a prospect of looking out their back window or off their porch to see little
more than a 600 root butlding or two 300 foot buildings looming 60 feet above them on a hill
that didn't even exist when the original agreement was signed. In our discussions with the
developer and the city planning department we've asked that either the topography in the section
of Outlot A be restored, fully or partially to it's original state, or that the setback be increased to
37
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
improve both screening and view preservation and I believe that some of those concerns have
been addressed and we're heartened by the fact that they're wanting to move that back 25 feet.
We'd like to see that though in writing. We'd like to see the finished project before any approval
is given to a site plan we would ask that that be taken into account. But as a Chanhassen
homeowner we would ask that you put yourselves in our shoes. If you had to look out your back
window at a 600 foot building rising 60 feet up above your back yard just 100 feet from your
property line, would you feel that your property had been protected through "sight and sound
buffers and preservation of use". Would you feel that efforts had been made to create a
"hannonious relationship of building and open space with natural site features". We don't
believe as residents that that is being taken into account. Section 20-1455 of the City Code states
that were natural topographic patterns contribute to the beauty of utility of a development, they
shall be preserved to the greatest extent possible. The current topography in the southeast
portion of Outlot A is not natural. It was man made. It will not contribute to the beauty of the
development and will not create a hannonious relationship with existing buildings as called for
by the code. We would therefore request that unless some type of compromise is found, the
developer be required to restore the southeast portion of Outlot A to it's original state. We
would also request that the developer work with the City and residents to provide a type of
berming in place of that hill and screening that truly complies with the intent of the city code.
Transition is an issue as well. There are a number of sections in the city code that talk about
transition. In fact 20-501 of the City Code states that PUD's are to encourage sensitive
development in transitional areas located between different land uses. Section 20-503 calls for
adequacy, location and screening of non-compatible land uses. According to the staff report
there is a reasonable transition between the subject site and the residential single homes to the
south of 100 feet, but we disagree. And we find that the City Code agrees with us as the next
and final argument will show. But again if you had to look out your back window at what is
being proposed, would you consider that a reasonable transition? And I don't know, we have
some photographs to show them.
Bill Weber: .. . relating back to parking, on page 11 of the staff report it indicates that you're not
meet ordinance as far as the safety issue. Fire trucks needing to get into your buildings. If you
widened those aisles, are you, where are you going to take up that safety? Is that going to come
into the surface as far as how they're going to accommodate that. I know they mentioned about
five plans tonight, one of which I think they hinted that they're going to meet that ordinance.
But the ones in the staff report don't.
Doug Wilder: I have some pictures here that we're just asking you to pass around. These are
pictures from someone's home looking out to the, what is the hill that was created when this
topsoil was relocated. And that's apparently the land upon which the building is going to be
built upon. The last and final issue that we're concerned with is, and it's tied to this transition
issue. Is the buffer yard and setback requirements. The staff report above uses these two terms
interchangeably but if we examine the City Code closely we find that there are actually two
separate requirements. First we have the setback requirement. According to City Code, quote,
the setback for all buildings from exterior PUD lot lines not abutting a public street shall be 30
feet, except that in no case shall the setback be less than the height of the building. And I can
provide you with a specific places in the City Code where it states that. The setback requirement
then would require a setback of roughly 36 feet, if I understood length correctly. Second
38
·... ¡.
Planning Commission Meeting - ofaawuy5, 2000
however we nave the requirement for a buffer yard. According to the City Code, the buffer yard
is an additional setback nlqlJiœment..It Ì$ to be cumulatively calculated with the required
setbacks; ButCeryards aœto'beestablisbed quote, this is all quoted directly out of the City
Code. Buffi::c~care to>-be established where high intensity uses interface with low intensity
uses. A l'OOiDot buf'mr,.niis ,~..;.....d where the interface occurs on internal lot lines. So what
v¡e're saying.1rere then is !hat the buffer yard requirement would require an additional setback of
100 feet,brillgingthe total~1c and buffer yard requirement on this project to at least 135
feet. Ifthe~wastruly.followed;¡md1he setback was indeed 135,136 feet on the southeast
portion of Oadot A, we -wi. veryJiUly not have an issue with the hill that we were noting in
the previouu:ase. 11 ooWd~sib1y ~ as a large berm and help provide some of the screening
necessary to provide an adequate tJ:aIISition between property uses. The Planning Commission
and City Attømeybave imerpreted the4:Ode to require 100 foot setback. We believe that they're
mistaken. Partly because the two terms tend to be used interchangeably. Partly because it's my
impression that they believe that the agreement having been signed in 1987 needs to be
considered with the.
Aanenson; Where the ordinance is silent on setback you follow, the City Attorney's opinion is
that you follow1he R-12 setback reqµirements.
Doug Wilder: Okay, my interpretation was differently but the City Code is not silent on that.
Aanenson: That's your opinion, correct. Which is different than our City Attorney's.
Doug Wilder: It's also been stated &at 1he current ordinance on buffer yards and setbacks was
not in place when the original PUD agreement was enacted so the City cannot enforce any
requirements. I don'tknow if that's !nIe or not, but it' s our understanding from the PUD
agreementttatt1he city cou1d,not maIœ any new amendments or changes only in the first five
years. Afterothat time they are able to do that and so it is possible for us to enforce the
. requirement a5stated in 1he-œde regardless of when that was enacted. And we would ask that
that be aclheR:d to. As we noted at lbeootset, we're not against the use of Outlot A for high
intensity purposes. However, we're.strongly against any provisions that are not consistent with
the official city eomprehensive plan;-tbe PUD agreement of 11/16/87 City Code and the Zoning
Ordinance says. Despíte"'llll that we know that compromise is necessary and we're willing to
work with the city and the developer to find ways to ensure that all interests are protected.
Because we need time to do that howevec, our request to the Planning Commission is that the
proposed site plan approval as listedln the staff report be tabled or rejected and that the hard
surface coveraj;:e amendment, the parking standards amendment, be either rejected or tabled.
And again, until a complete packagc.has been presented to the residents and to the Planning
Commissiœ1hat1lddœssesall oftht1ssues that we've outlined, we believe that to proceed with
any of thesdndividual issues wouklk counter productive. Thank you.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else wishing to address the commission, please come forward.
Dan Fagan.:..HLMyna!1Ie's DanF~,llive at 1340 Lake Susan Hills Drive. And Ijust had a
couple of points that I kindof-wanted to see where we're at. Where the developer is in the
process, and1bat goes to Ibe PUD agreement that was signed in '87. Talking about, it's an
39
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
additional conditions of approval, the developer shall not damage or remove any trees except as
indicated on the grading and tree removal plans to be approved by the city. First of all have
those plans been approved already?
Link Wilson: At this point you should probably just address the commission.
Dan Fagan: Okay. Well have those plans been approved by the city yet at this time?
Aanenson: The grading plan is submitted. Not a finalized one. It will be as a part of, it is a
requirement.
Dan Fagan: Okay, because I just don't know if anyone's actually been to the site but there is
considerable amount of aged trees that are on the south side and according to these plans they're
just going to be.
Aanenson: Our City Forester has walked the site and she's given specific recommendations
which are in the report.
Dan Fagan: Okay. So in looking at the plans it looks like all the trees will be eliminated?
Aanenson: I don't think that's true.
Dan Fagan: I'm sorry, I'm looking at the pictures because there is a picture from the comer of
Lake Drive and maybe the trees haven't been in there saved but it appeared as though the trees
were going to be removed and that was just a concern.
Aanenson: There is a retaining wall on the comer of Powers and Lake Drive where the
significant trees are that we're trying to save. Based on species and type and that's how the
decision was made but the City Forester did walk the property and made a recommendation. It
probably has to do with type and age.
Dan Fagan: Okay, because I guess my main concern is those seemed pretty close to the road and
it seems like the more they actually do get in there with the setbacks, I guess I'm not.
Aanenson: ...1' d recommend that we can talk to you too.
Dan Fagan: Okay. And the next thing I'd like to just talk about would be the landscaping
budget, and the agreement was $500 per unit. That is a budget of roughly $175,000-$172,000 at
this point and that was in 1987. I know there is in the code, or in the City Code, there is
minimum landscaping budgets and actually you may be able to answer this question. Do you
know what the landscaping budget is?
Peterson: I think that we as a city will approve as a council. . .
Dan Fagan: Alright, well my point is that in the code it does have projects over $4 million to be
1% and that would be double of what, at $100,000 per unit we'd be at $344,000 on a budget
40
·
Planning c.......:__:onMeeting -ñmuary5,2000 -
which is twice <If that so I'd just like to have that_a consideration. One of the other points that
I just wanted to bring up would be the, )'OU know as written in the agreement it talks about under
conditions <ff~:dIeô~"'. ptGiricie ,buffer areas acceptable to the city between
multiple family and siDgte ûmilyareas1D assure adequate transition between uses, including the
use of bernr.;;1andscaping and .db....Àá'fromIot lines, I also would read further in the agreement
that the agr--n-_ under~osballbe..~toprotect the public's interest. Obviously our
real concem herewnigbtis the }",u'1di9, how.close they are to the homes. And I'm not a
, lawyer, I don'! ;nt"'I"âJe@al.do""~-" butmheœit would appear to me that the city would
have some discretion ~"g to tbis>ClOdtlIllllt'.flo.. .be brought out. And finally, the last thing I
just wanted to talkaboutis the de\doper talked about you know time as an issue. . The bond
rates are up. Yes, that'-strue. We're tBlking Pàase I here. A construction loan I don't think, I
think this is 8'serWuS project. There'ßÐeen ye¡m¡in,the process that this has been able to get
built so the fact that expediency in this matter does not sound reasonable to me. I understand
there's a project on line. There's been dollars up front but for them to ask for this to be, I don't
want to say pushed through as quickly as possible, but I think there should be adequate time for
the city and/or the residents to fully seethe plans. This isn't something that all of a sudden needs
to be done right now because this is obviously a considerable project. Considerable dollars at
risk and you know. considerable concern from the residents. That's it. Thanks.
Peterson: Thank you. Anyone else?
Kind moved, Conrad seconded to close the public hearing. The public hearing was closed.
Peterson: Public hearing is closed. You had asked for a few minutes to respond. I guess if I do
that I wouldaIso probably let the public hearing probably come back so I guess, you don't have
to respond. I think it's my preference dJat you11Ot.'13ecause of doing the right thing so I'll leave
..' that to your.dìscretioo. nff)'UIJ fèel1hete'.s..sometbìng really salient, I'll re-open it up again.
Link Wilson: I think my<mly comment is that;ifI can approach the microphone, is that I do feel
that there'sMeqmte information that is in yom-, packet that describes what the architecture of the
buildings are. I ran 4ß ropies of this. This is what was presented on board which shows 125 foot
setback for-the building. Ibrought40ofthese ronight. I've only got 3 of them in my hand but
there are ,,"uughinthisroom that we could give to-ob, there's a stack. That we could give to
each and every one of you that then describes that site plan. And therefore I do believe that we
have adequate information to describe the project
Peterson: Thank you. Pass those around. Commissioners we have, I don't know if controversial
is the word but I1hink a difficult tbiug to review so I would offer and look for your comments. I
think overaUand then if~ necd10-getspecifie-we"Cal1 from there but let's talk conceptually and
" then granulate,fromtbauo.. DocsJIII)'Dne carew tackle this one first?
Kind; Mr. ChaiIman l11ave 11 ~uesûonm staff.-Regarding what was presented by, I wish I could
remember}'DUt JUID1e sir; Mr: Weber, fttank-Y011.{)n the last page of his handout, talking about
how you ca1culate'the buffer yard. Could you speak to that please?
41
Planning Cwh";ssionMœting - ~y 5,2000
,.
Aanenson: Certainly. 'I11e.-ighborsareawareofthis. We had a very good meeting with the
neighbors.~~ÙJccnagoodproœss. J,ihinku..ofgive and take and providing information.
As in theseiliüìtiœs,·it IICMIIrSoemslílœtRere'.~lgh time to try to get an understanding of
the ordimlDlZs.,1bis 4' : ~'DD_ m-1gJrt up iDihe meeting that we had with the neighbors.
" We did get aJl8al up;.,iOl!lOØ. /Bat. -certainly th&;y're 4øoking for areas, ways that they can
benefit their.~rty~y. Andlhtpethey3mdcr/;tand this. That was our first approach
too. We WMÍ'.-makeilli51'fØ.iectWQd¡ but ~'œ trØng to strike a balance. He's demonstrated,
the applicant Jilts dAm---'~ a F~ wOlb; &,bas a right to that plan. In the spirit of
cooperation~*Yingto .'''~ 1.~__ that are not required by ordinance. As
indicated by &be Jast time J.¡poIœ he'sgoÎDg way\>,eyood the landscaping ordinance, so what
we're trying tødo is get more than what was required by that ordinance and still stay within, so
we're doing a give and take on both sides. And in tbat particular one, it's the City Attorney's
opinion that we're interpreting the ordinance correctly. And to go to the R-12 setback. We don't
go back, the PUD standard wasn't in place. It said, it speaks, if it's silent it says go to the R-12
as far as setback. That's what, and that's the City Attorney's opinion. I certainly understand that
they want the buildings as fur back as they can get it and I believe the developer has worked very
hard to try to acœmplish that. Moving as far a they can.
Kind: But if we were developing this situation today, their calculation is correct, it would be 100
in addition tothe 35 foot buffer?
Aanenson: Yeah, probably today, correct.
Al-Jaff: And they're going through the zoning ofPUD today.
Aanenson:.Riþ. 'Buttheothi:c thingtoo is I meant!1ey're coming in with larger trees than are
required S61'm saying t:I!àîe"spe mid take on both. !Sides and that's what I'm trying to say. I
think that's what I heæ-tàeneighborsaying too, that they recognize that, trying to strike that.
And part of their fruStra1iÐttis that they haven't seen the final plan. It just came in today and it
has been a '!I1m'Íøgtarget.~lfie,fact1b1Uhey're ayingto respond to our concerns and their
concerns.
Kind: And then the next1hing is the date that we have to have this done. What's the date in our
new format that, review deadline. February I st.
Aanenson: .Theœisa60 day requirement, and w£'xegettìng close to that. I guess I'd ask if the
applicant wuuldn't have a problem ifwecould table this to get a fmal drawing, if they're
comfortable with that. They do haveaplanthatmeets the conditions but I think in the spirit of
cooperation, 1IDd I'm not_ if we cÇd getanødiertwo weeks so everybody could see the final
plans.
Kind: Tbeßt1lff1bey·ha,,¡;¡p,. out oowdoes.no.t give.us-enough time to really give it the, that's
where I'm·~.
.ç.
Aanenson: I guess r d asK the applicant.
42
Planning Commmïon~g - JantIIIIY 5, 2000
Kind: If we could get an extension on the.
Link Wilson: I œaIlyofeel tbat.,üo I œt!Ii togotD tile micropbone? '.
Peterson: IfyÐO_.Iñ, yeah.
Link Wilson: lreally" feelthatapocially witlt the engineered plan that you have, the 8 Yz x 11
that was suh-:~ . ,åIt js,a A_:W pIao.crea&ed by JIiII ShIdxmo.and Jeff Shopek. We stand
behind it as1lD ~n ¡red dI.....;ng aø4_feel that1llllt,is__ has changed in the last 48 hours.
That change really is precipita¡ed by J¡e spirit of œoperatioD that we tried to create with the
neighbors so I guess I stiIl stand that we feel that we have enough information to you and we
don't really see a rontinuation as an option this evening.
Peterson: Even if we could fit it into the next Planning Commission meeting, which is in two
weeks?
Link Wilson: At this time, no. We would really prefer that it just be struck down tonight in that
case and then 'We'WOUld1alœ our issues to the City Council. Thank you.
Aanenson: Mr. Chairman, I believe it's in your discretion if you believe you don't have enough
information based on that, that you do have the discretion to .demand another time period based
on state law. There is a 60 day but you can ask for it based on the fact that the site plan changed.
If you feel that's not.enough information. I think the staff would concur that the engineering's
not going to change that much based on pushing the building forward. I think in fairness, I'll let
you make that decision.
Peterson: I thiftk wbat r d like10 do is listen w the continuing comments from the
commissioners and then ~ asa group make that 1iecisìon iD~ few minutes.
Burton; Can I ask one more questIDn'Of staffwhile"we're kind ofasking questions here?
There's been some discussion about in the PUD agreement that I think it was '87 and it expired
after, well someQftheprovisions expire after five years. And now the neighbors are citing some
of the other code provisions, I think they've taken some stuff out of the PUD ordinance.
Aanenson: Correct.
Burton: .. .how you feel about that.
Aanenson: That's what I'm SU'ing;1'D!l can't gow the PUD-ordinance. You have to go to the
R-12. It specifically.sets that. But there is. I mean;tbe ruIesare set in place for five years and
they had thatm-mm... It's.gone beyDnd some oftbat, but1:YeDifyou said that they had to
,double the ordinance, the tmdscaping values, they've gone beyond that. They've gone beyond
that in the tree size so I'm saying there'is, they're trying to go beyond the ordinance already and I
don't think WC\WIlUO ma)œit.a miaim,,¡ projcct.1Jwy certain1y'oon't want and we don't want
to push that either. That's what I'm saying, there's give and take and the neighbors recognize
that and they're willing to give and take.
43
Planning Commission'Meeting - January 5, 2000
Peterson: Let's start talking about this general thoughts of the project as it stands independently
of some of the technical issues.
Joyce: I'll throw myœmments in. I think that, I guess the way I'd start this is I like the project.
I like it a lot. The problem is I don't like where it's at. I think there was a mistake made by the
city years ago that they didn't realize they were making. I know that this day and age we would
have a transition, not.only of a buffer transition but of a density transition. And we don't have
that luxury now, obviously. So we have to deal with what we have. I know one of the residents
said put yourself in my shoes and I've been there. You look out at an open field, it's almost your
field. This guy's going to go into your field and do something with it and that's difficult. So in
that regard I certainly·empathize with you. Understand what you're going through. But I do like
the project as far as what they're trying to do here. I don't know how much more they can do. I
think Ladd certainly is trying his best to figure out a methodology of making it a little more
palatable as we said. I don't know if that's possible or not. I guess what it boils down to is that
you're going to have a high density building in your back yard and that's, I think you have to
accept that. How it's going to be positioned, how it's going to be buffered and that is what we're
all talking about here. I do think that the applicant's done an excellent job as far as trying to
buffer it with what he's had. I think pushing that extra 25 feet is important. I think we're close.
I really do. And I, the one thing I disagree with the applicant is that he doesn't consider giving
us a little more time to swallow this. I'm talking about both the neighbors and the Planning
Commission. I think you might be surprised what kind of good ideas someone will come up
with when their feet are to the fire and we've had a good time to look at this and kind of get a
feel for it. So I would suggest, I would hate to strike it down. I think our job as a Planning
Commission is to clean things up so that you have a smooth halfway to the City Council and I
think that's what we're trying to do right now and I get the feeling the neighbors aren't real
happy but they realize that it's going to be developed in a certain method and I don't think you're
real happy because you don't want to delay this any further but you might be saving yourself
time by tabling it now versus what could happen at the City Council. So I'll listen to other
comments but I'm in favor of tabling it and giving it another shot in two weeks and let's try to
clean things up just a little bit and move forward with it because I think it's going to move
forward.
Peterson: Specifically cleaning things up, I mean do you have any recommendations?
Joyce: Well I mean just, let's see what that looks like. I mean that's only fair to these people.
They should be able to see what this looks like.
Peterson: So a better rendering of.
~~.
Joyce: Yeah, I mean Alison had a good point. It was something I looked at and she was, you
know let's just make sure that's the right, what we're doing with the trail system. There's just a
few things in here. I don't think this is a huge, maybe Ladd would have an inspiration in the next
week or so or something.
Conrad: Wait until I get it.
44
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
Joyce: See, I'm waiting.
Peterson: Vision is maybe the word.
Joyce: Vision, yes.
Peterson: Other comments?
Sidney: Mr. Chairman, we'll go around here. Go down the line. I agree with Kevin's comments
and yes, I've been there and understand the importance of transition zone between different uses
and in this case this is a really important project to the city. It's an unusual situation where we
have single family homes abutting high density development. There aren't that many in the city
and I think we need to be super careful about what we do and we want to do the best job we can
for the community and for the residents. I think the thing that I thought of immediately, you
know what was I going to comment on. I think the thing that Ladd brought up about building
locations, angles are really important and I don't think you would want to look at a huge blank
wall or wall of these buildings as he stated. And I think in that way the developer should seek to
create some better drawings and have everyone take a look at it another time and go through it.
Also I think we need a better understanding of the landscape situation on the south side. Exactly
where are trees preserved and where are trees going to be planted. What are these trees? When
re they going to be planted? I still think, especially with evergreens you can go in and plant
sooner than later. I don't think that construction's going to hurt them as much as some other
trees. Larger, mature trees. That's my opinion. But I would be in favor of taking another look
at this. Make sure everyone's in agreement, especially with the configuration of the buildings.
I'm glad, I'm very pleased the buildings were pushed back farther and I think we're almost there
like Kevin says. We need a little bit more work.
Peterson: Deb.
Kind: Moving right along. I also would like to table this, if we can and get a time extension on
it. But I will speak to what my loose ends are that I'd like to see tied up in a neat little box
before it goes to the City Council. I would like to see the idea of that B2 building being angled
or changed somehow. The way Ladd was suggesting. I think that's a good idea because right
now they're just kind of parallel to each other and if you just changed some things by putting
some angles in there, I think that that can be done. That's something new that came up tonight
that I'd really like to see. My predisposition to this is that we're following the 1987 PUD
agreement when it benefits the applicant. We also need to follow it when it does not benefit the
applicant and there's some things in there that don't benefit them, like the surface area, which I'
willing to concede if it' s really true that you can just take away the sidewalks and meet that. I'd
like to have, or change the roads to meet that because I really disliked that plan that you showed
with driving through the parking lot. That is not going to work. And if that really does meet the
letter of the law, you've convinced me that we need to increase the impervious surface. And I
don't want to give up my sidewalks. I think pedestrian flow is really important. I think city
staff did a great job of getting that in there so I need to have some proof I guess that building
reduction isn't the result of that impervious enforcement. The parking is the same deal. The R-
45
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
12 requirement for enclosed parking is 1.5 per and I'd like to see for sure that that commons area
would be sacrificed to make up for that. That's an important part to me, that commons area and I
think that's worth having. Is that really what would be sacrificed to get that or is that just kind
of, I don't know, I feel like it's a little threat to me but. But if that's true that that's what would
go, then I probably would be willing to give that up because I think that's really important to the
site. I've lived in apartments a lot in my lifetime. My parents were divorced when I was 10. I
lived in apartments pretty much since I was 10 through my married life. When I was a new
professional and I've lived in cheap apartments and I've lived in really nice apartments and what
you're trying to do here I think is really nice and I don't think it's going to be poor people, like
myself when we were first out of college. We wouldn't be able to afford this but I think this will
be more young professionals to young families getting their start and I think I would ,make a
good neighbor and I think these people would make good neighbors. And the pool is iQlportant
to that. To that life so. Let me see, what else I have on here. I really want you to consider the
sidewalks that I talked about and I think some of these things I know can just be addressed on the
next site plan but I want it to be presented in a way, there's just too many things that are missing
from the site plan that we've looked at that's dated December 3rd that I'd like to see there so that
the neighbors can see it. So we all can see it. And that's some of the stuff there.
Peterson: Other than the sidewalks, what's missing?
Kind: I'd like to see specifics to the landscaping. How they're going to exceed the buffer
requirements, especially on that south lot line. And species of trees and size specified so that,
otherwise it just ends up being a huge laundry list of conditions and I would really like to see that
come from the applicant and not from us adding a laundry list of conditions. We can load it up
with conditions tonight too. That is an option I guess. The bay window thing, I would like to
see what that looks like. The roof pitch, I'd like to see what the 4:12 looks like. I'd like to see
the deck railings be in a low maintenance metal. You pointed out there's so little of it showing
so I'm thinking it's possible to do it. I don't know. And then the wetland thing, it is in the PUD
agreement that you can't touch that wetland and I was glad to see that you're not going to. I
want to see that not touching that wetland. 50 foot setback. A plan that we look at. And I would
like to see some of the things that were not, that were missing in the staff report addressed in
your site plan like the trash. Where that's going to be located. I'd like to see where the utility
meters are going to be. Architects never show where the utility meters are in the buildings
because they're pretty ugly and I'd like to see where they're going to be. Right? And I'd like to
see where they'll be and how they're going to be screened. Because they're going to probably be
on that back side where all the neighbors get to look at them. And I think that's it.
Peterson: Thanks. Matt.
Burton: Well first I thank everybody for coming here tonight and giving us your perspective
because it really helps to get a picture of what's going on and to talk about putting ourselves in
your shoes and I know, I think a lot of us had the experiences, well maybe not exactly similar to
your's but that drove us to get on the Planning Commission because things were going on in our
neighborhood, you know. They were talking about putting a dealership, car dealership on
Highway 5 a couple years ago and that's how I ended up on the Planning Commission because
that was right by where I lived so I kind of know where you're coming from. I guess there are a
46
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
lot of issues and looking at it, the different things that we have to look at, one of them would be
the site plan. And the statute that, in the ordinance I guess it is that we have to follow and the
case law on site plans does not leave us a lot of discretion and this PUD agreement didn't have
any standards in it either, but I'm still not convinced that this project necessarily meets that site
plan standards even though they're not that strict. One of the elements I think is, I think the
neighbors noted this in that report was that it has to protect the adjacent neighboring properties
through reasonable provision for surface water drainage, sound and sight buffers, preservation of
use, light in there and that aspects of design not adequately covered by other regulations, which
may have a substantial affect on neighboring land uses. And I do think that these buildings, at
least in my opinion, they seem to tower a bit over the neighborhood so I question whether that
provision is met. And my main focus then is on buildings Bl and B2, but the problem is tonight
we're really supposed to be looking at Building A. That's what the site plan is for. But I think
you can tie them together because how you place Building A affects what you can do with B 1
and B2 and we'd be, if we just blindly, I'm not saying we're doing that but if we just blindly pass
Building A, then we'd be limiting our options down the road and I'd really like to have a better
picture of where everything's going before we pass on Building A because I have the concerns
with Bl and B2. So therefore I guess I'd be more inclined, I would like to table it and see if we
can take another look at those and see if we can resolve that before I would pass on that. And if I
was forced to, I'd vote no tonight on the site plan. Issues like hard surface cover area, I think
that that's pretty easy to get around. I think that it does make the project better to increase it, just
by the little bit they're asking for. And disallowing it wouldn't kill the project, it would just
make it a worse project so I think it just makes sense to let it go through. And I would also give
the developer credit in considering to allow the hard surface to be increased for things that
they've done like dropping the roofs and moving the buildings that they've done and breaking up
buildings and all the other things they've talked about doing. I think the developer has done a
good job of trying to cooperate with the neighbors and I give them credit for that. The only other
item that I really think I need to comment on is the change in land elevation perhaps over time
and the neighbors have alleged that increased substantially and I don't think there's any evidence
that's been given to us that the elevation has changed. Just the people stating that it has on both
sides. I think it would be very relevant if it could be established that it has changed a lot since
1987 and if there was some verifiable evidence that could be presented to the commission or the
City Council showing that. I think it may, it would affect my decision anyway, if it had
increased substantially. SO if that's something that's a contention that continues, then I think
that people have to do their homework and be able to establish it so that we can rely on it and not
just, because what we have so far we can't rely on. I guess that's it. I pretty much agree with the
other comments.
Peterson: Alison.
Blackowiak: Yeah, I basically would like to thank everyone for coming too and thank the
neighbors because they certainly did a very professional job in giving us their side of the story
and that's very helpful when people give a nice, organized, not terribly emotional plea to us
because it makes things a lot easier and I know that this is a very emotional issue for everybody
concerned so just thank you for that. I'm not going to add a lot but what I would like to say is
that things that would have helped me make a decision tonight are things such as color
renderings, materials that I could have seen maybe beforehand or sketches with materials that I
47
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
could have seen. Sight line sketches. Give me a sketch of what the person standing in a back
yard will see as they look up. Show me how the trees would help buffer that. That's the kind of
information that I did not have in my packet.
Aanenson: Oh you had the board..., right.
Blackowiak: Right, we saw the board but that was when I got here and I like to kind of see
things ahead of time and stew over them. Unfortunately I'm not a real, I don't make a lot ofreaI
quick decisions. I usually have to read a packet a few times over to make sure I'm getting
everything that I need and that would really have helped me tonight. I do realize that I now have
a revised plan but again, I like to look at it. I like to kind of stew over it a little bit before making
a final decision. I need to clarify, Dave didn't you say something about there was an elevation
change due to grading. 10 to 20 feet high, 20 feet wide, 80 feet long. I mean isn't that, didn't
you say that that was the estimated change and I just remember thinking that was about the size
of a football field.
Hempel: Mr. Chairman, commissioners. That's correct. I've estimated about 200 feet long, 50
feet wide, approximately 10 feet high.
Blackowiak: Okay, so that is a change. So I mean that may help you Matt, or not, but as I think
of the B2 hill, I mean the developers or the applicant comes and says it's a thimble full. I mean
maybe that thimble full can be spread along and add 2 inches to the overall project. I don't
know. But to have it all sit on that 82 hill, I don't know if that's fair to the neighbors who are
going to be directly impacted by it so that would be one of my things I'd like to have researched
is what can happen. You know if it is created by the developer, regardless of whether it's not the
current developer, should that situation be remedied before we do anything else? I know there
was a situation out on 101 where there was a huge berm that ended up getting changed down by,
I can't think of the name of the development, by 101 and Lyman. Springhill, yeah. So there
was, there is precedence set. I mean we have done this before so if there's something to change,
maybe it needs to go back to the way it was and then again look at how B2 would be from the
back yard beèause I think that that's a valid point. Ifit was indeed changed by development then
maybe we should start over at, you know ground zero so to speak and look at things again.
Overall I would say I would like more time to look at this. I need more information. I'd like to
kind of make sure that I'm getting the full impact of things. If! were forced to vote tonight, I
would say no because I don't have enough information. So that's it.
Peterson: Thank you. Ladd.
Conrad: ...nice professional job, that's terrific. Generally I agree with all the variances or
amendments that they're asking for. I think they're just rationale things. Makes it a better
project. Real disappointed in the transition. I think you met the letter of the law but you really
didn't meet the intent. The B2 building I think staff got you at least to separate that but again
based on, and maybe the 125 setback might solve some things in terms of some buffering but it
really didn't meet what we've ever done here as we try to move single family, multi-family next
to single family, and this is a big, you're up on a 12 foot grade and so I think that's the
disappointment that I have in the project. The other thing I would have done is instead of five
48
~
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
buildings I'd make them seven. And when you have big profiles, how possibly can that fit into a
neighborhood. How possibly? It can't. We have to table it whether it's nice or not, we have to
table this. I think we should take a look at the bay window situation. I'd like to see the new
setback for the B2 building. I'd like to challenge the applicant to see, and you can come back
and say we can't do it but I'd really just like to challenge you. I'm not an architect. But some
angles there so it's not absolutely in their face. You've got it right in their face and I'm not
asking, you know I'd probably say I don't care if it's 100 foot setback. The neighbors wouldn't
want me to move it back to that but it's a wall on the back yards. I don't know. I'd challenge
you on that one and maybe you'll come back and say we don't want to do it. I think I'd like to
see a site plan with the sidewalk on it. I would like to see a final landscape. The one thing that
you can do to make this work is the landscape plantings and I haven't really seen the final draft
of that. That's the one thing that you've got to do and I sure want to see a final landscape plan.
That's what they're asking for and to want to go through tonight and get it onto City Council I
think would not be appropriate on our part to do that. I think the other comments I'll pick up in
the motion that I've heard. I think they're all pretty valid that have been said here tonight.
That's all.
Peterson: Thank you Ladd. I also reiterate almost to a point my fellow commissioners, items
that they want to see further clarification on a more detail on so I won't go into those. The only
one addition that I would have, and it goes back to building materials that Deb went through a
little bit earlier. On that top portion of the buìlding, when I saw the initial packet and looked at it
Ijust said it doesn't fit. It doesn't work for me. I don't, and even looking at the color
renderings, it just doesn't, it seems so awkward as it's defined. Again that's my opinion and take
that for what it's worth but it jut doesn't seem to fit regarding other projects we've had of this
size. It's just disjointed. Whether that, you go brick all the way up, that has some negatives
along with it too but it just doesn't seem to work the way it is so with that, both that comment
and those comments I would also vote to table this to give the applicant and see staff and the
residents around there to give a little bit more time. Kate, what is realistic based upon our
current schedule? Is it feasible to do it the next session or not?
Aanenson: I guess I'd turn it over to the applicant. Two weeks is a quick turn around because
we'd have to have it out and back to you next week. Next Thursday so we're talking really a
week's turn around to get it back to you. And for the neighbors to get in.
Peterson: Can we set that as a target and have it being moving?
Aanenson: Sure. Otherwise it'd be the first meeting in February.
Peterson: Because I think the things we talked about can be addressed relatively quìckly. I mean
I think you've got a sense generally from the commissioners that the variances aren't really the
issue. It is more design in nature. I'll give you the fact that if we start moving the buildings
around that is pretty substantial. So why don't we shoot for the next meeting and adjust
accordingly so a motion please.
Conrad: I would make that motion. I can't read on the staff report what the case is so, I would
recommend that we table Planning Case XXXX, whatever we're looking at. Including site plan
49
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
review and planned unit development amendment and wetland alteration permit so I'm
recommending that we table that for the applicant to come back and address the following issues.
A review of the bay window and maybe a rendering of the bay window on the buildings facing
the south. A site plan that shows the detailed site plan that shows the setback that has been
changed to 125 feet or something like that. I would like to have the landscape plan updated with
the most current thinking and plantings that you feel will buffer this site adequately. I'd like to
see a site plan with the sidewalk on the north side of the site. I would like to have staff review
the, and maybe the neighborhood can help in terms of establishing the original elevation of that
hill. Maybe Dave has already done that but I guess the planning staff should come back to us,
the way I would interpret it is that's been altered and that should be restored the way it was
original. I'd like to have a recommendation from staff on that. I'd also like to have staff review
the residents response to us, I think it was well drafted. I don't want to just let it go. I think if
there are any relevant things that we think are legal issues in there, I'd like the staff to bring
those back up. I'd like to challenge the applicant to angle Building B2. If it makes no sense, I
sure expect you to come back and say that to me, but right now you haven't done, other than
distance and maybe some trees, you haven't mitigated a, you haven't really established much of
a transition area. So I'd like to challenge you in terms of angling Building B2. I'd like you to
review the building materials presented tonight. I'd like to have you take a look at, or present to
us a 4: 12 roof pitch for the neighborhood to see. And I'd like to make sure that on your plat,
identifY where the trash enclosures are.
Peterson: Is there a second?
Joyce: Oh yes, second.
Peterson: Any discussion?
Kind: I do have one thing to add to Ladd's list, seeing that you're trying to put in a neat package
at the end. Show where the utility meters are and the boxes, the free standing boxes, where
they'll be on the site.
Blackowiak: Lighting?
Kind: Lighting.
Aanenson: We've got that.
Kind: You're awesome.
Peterson: Balcony railing.
Kind: That the balcony railings, the building materials I think Ladd covered on his list there but
also in that landscaping plan, show the tree conservation plan as well of existing trees. What
ones will be saved. I think that's a pretty good laundry list.
Peterson: Friendly amendment accepted?
50
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
Conrad: Yes.
Peterson: It's been moved and seconded. Any further discussion?
Conrad moved, Joyœ seCOllded that the Planning Commission table the preliminary plat of
21.34 acres into four 10ts.(SUB 99-14) and table Site Plan Review #99-19 for Phase I
(Building A) 106 units as sJ¡own on the plans dated received December 3, 1999 to review the
items outlined by the PIa_ing Commission. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously.
ONGOING BUSINESS.
Aanenson: Anyway, the home occupation, because I knew this would be going late, we did table
that. On the next meeting we do have another complex PUD that's requesting a comp plan
change. So I assume that will be also. .. so that is complex. So depending on what else is with
that, the home occupation is a discussion we need to be examining. It is a timely issue but it isn't
on the same relevance as the applications are the thing that we have to keep track of. The second
meeting in February is a work session. If you have suggestions, the staff has a few ideas. We'd
like to do some training. Some brainstorming. Planning staff put together a design standards
exercise with the City Council. It went really well. I'd like to run that past you. we Put some
slides together. Exercise, some games. To give us some direction to where to go. I think it's
appropriate that we bring you into that exercise to examining materials and the exercise we did is
kind of quality of life issues. essentially plays right into that discussion. things that make this
community livable and makes it a great place to live so I think that's something that we'll be
taking up with our work session. if there's something else that you would like us to discuss on
that meeting, again second one in February. otherwise, design format. I noticed one glitch.
Obviously Ladd caught it. we blocked out case numbers... I hope that you noticed a little bit of
the changes. the level of discretion. we put that at the bottom again when we do variances. just
to be clear when we're doing a variance versus a conditional use. we can't deny conditional use.
we attach conditions to mitigate those. just to be clear and try to keep us a frame of reference so
we did take off some of the other redundant things that we end up putting into the paragraph.
Conrad: location. you're-mixing location.
Aanenson: that's what I took off.
Conrad: It's so nice to see the context of where the site is.
Aanenson: You're talking about the map that you see in the inside always.
Kind: Put that back.
Conrad: Bring it back.
Kind: we liked that.
51
Planning Commission Meeting - January 5, 2000
Aanenson: That got nixed. this report we'll talk about later. So with that, what else are we
going to talk about? just that we will have probably a full meeting that next one so I'll decide,
depending on. lknow it's not appropriate to try to discuss that sort of thing at this time.
"
Kind: I'm ready.
Aanenson: Tbehome occupation?
Peterson: Not going to happen.
Kind: never mind.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Kind noted the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting
dated December I, 1999 as presented.
Chairman Peterson adjourned the Planning Commission meeting at 10:15 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
52